Request for Prototype Proposal (RFPP) - Test Cell Modification_Amendment 01.pdf

29 October 2025

MEMORANDUM FOR INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: AFMC/AFTC/PZIA (Arnold)

SUBJECT: OTP Execution Step 5 – Request for Prototype Proposal: TB3C1 Test Cell

Modifications, 10 U.S.C. 4022 – Authority of the DoD to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects - Establishment of Other Transaction Prototype (OTP) Project(s) with Potential for Follow-on Production Capability_Amendment 01

Request for Prototype Proposal Overview

Objective: The objective for utilizing 10 U.S.C. 4022 is to award up to two (2) Other Transaction Prototype (OTP) Projects. After OTP award, and if determined to be in the best interest of the Government, one (1) follow-on production agreement will be awarded to the vendor whose OTP is determined to be successful. A successful OTP will validate the vendor’s business process and design solution to modify the existing TB3C1 Test Cell and exhaust duct to meet the requirements outlined in SOO Attachment 1 – Performance Parameters.

The prototype in its entirety will include all areas of the Business Process and Proof of Concept detailed in the Successful Prototype Definition Section of this Request for Prototype Proposal.

In response to this request for prototype proposal, the vendor will address each Factor listed below as provided in the Instructions to Prototype Offerors section. The Government will evaluate the vendor’s responses in accordance with the Evaluation Process under the Basis for Award section. After evaluations are complete, the Government will then select up to two (2) vendors for award.

Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation – Submit past or present performance information that demonstrates how the company has structured and implemented business process(es), and how they have designed and executed proof of concept(s), which will give the Government a level of expectation on the vendor’s capability to execute this project.

Factor 2: Business Process – Provide information pertaining to how the company plans to utilize subcontractor(s), how it plans to execute prime in-house operations in both prototype and follow-on production phases, the technical approach it plans to utilize, information pertaining to conceptual design proof of concept data rights, and a schedule for delivering the finalized prototype.

Factor 3: Price – Provide a price for the prototype in its entirety.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE TEST CENTER (AFMC)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA

PROTOTYPE PROPOSAL AFFORDABILITY STATEMENT. The Government seeks prototype proposals with a total prototype price not exceeding $500k. Offerors should not interpret this figure as a ceiling (or as a floor) on prototype proposals; rather, this information is provided as a courtesy to prospective offerors. The Government may select a proposal for award with a price below, at, or exceeding this figure if it finds the proposal provides the best value/solution and funds are available.

Vendor responses to Factors 1 – 3 will allow the Government to evaluate prototype proposals in accordance with the Basis for Award criteria and down select by making up to two (2) OTP awards, if proposals are found to be awardable.

Once the OTP award(s) is/are made, the vendor will work to develop their finalized Prototype Business Process and Proof of Concept.

Finally, the Government will determine if the vendor’s Prototype Business Process and Proof of Concept is successful based on how the vendor addresses each variable detailed in the Successful Prototype Definition Section; however, the Government, at any point after OTP award, has the authority to move into follow-on production if the vendor accomplishes a particularly favorable or unexpected result that justifies the transition to production.

For the OTP that is determined to be successful, the Government anticipates awarding one (1) follow-on production other transaction agreement or FAR-based contract to that vendor to procure, deliver, install, integrate, verify, and provide all additions and modifications to the existing Test Cell and exhaust duct.

At this time, the statement of objectives for this project are defined; however, after award, specifications and/or quantity changes could occur if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Agreement Type: Firm-Fixed-Price for both Prototype Agreement and potential Follow-on Production Contract or Agreement.

Delivery:

Digital Items – Agreements Officer: Brooke Z. Vandeman brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil

Physical Items – 1476 N Hap Arnold Dr, Arnold AFB, TN 37389-8000

Number of OTP Award(s): Up to two (2) prototype awards may be made, if two (2) proposals are determined awardable by the Agreements Officer.

Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) and Assigned Rating: DO-C2

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 541330, Engineering Services mailto:brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil

Proposal Validity: Vendor proposals shall be valid for 60 days after submission due date.

Government Anticipated Payable Milestones (MS)

Prototype Milestones:

Payments for MS 1 - 3 will be received after the prototype award has been made as follows:

o Payment 1 will be received after the Kickoff Meeting has occurred.

o Payment 2 will be received after the vendor submits their finalized Business Process to the Government.

o Payment 3 will be received after the vendor submits their finalized Proof of Concept to the Government.

o Payments for Options, if Options are exercised, will be made once each phase of design is complete.

o NOTE: The Prototype Proposal Affordability Statement applies only to MSs 1-3.

MS Options o MSs 4 through 7 are unfunded options; however, if funding becomes available and the option(s) is/are exercised, the MS(s) may be fully or incrementally funded.

o Option MS pricing and technical acceptability shall be determined reasonable and technically acceptable prior to award of the OTP(s), should an award(s) be made; as such, option pricing shall be included in the response to this RFPP.

o The Agreements Officer has the right to exercise the option(s) at any point during the 12-month period preceding the OTP(s) award date at the mutually agreed upon firm-fixed price.

Follow-on Production Estimated Milestones:

MSs for the follow-on production may be negotiated if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to enter into a follow-on production contract or transaction.

Inspect / Accept / Reject / Payment for Each MS o Each delivered MS will be inspected by the appointed Air Force Project Manager, and each MS shall pass inspection, prior to accepting the invoice in WAWF.

o If a MS does not meet the specification(s) causing it not to pass inspection, the invoice will be rejected. The vendor shall be liable for shipping the defective MS(s) back to their facility at their expense, and the vendor shall expedite, at their expense, the replacement MS(s) to keep project schedule.

o For prototype MS 1 - 7, the unit of measure is “each”; therefore, the vendor may submit invoice(s) in WAWF as quantities are completed.

Funding Data

- TBD

Instructions to Prototype Offerors

The Government requests the vendor to submit a proposal addressing the Mandatory Statutory Criteria, Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, Factor 2: Business Process and Factor 3 Price.

Proposals must be structured to clearly demonstrate how the information provided addresses each of these mandatory criteria. Vendors shall directly reference the following throughout their proposals to ensure evaluations are streamlined:

o Factor 1 Vendor Risk Mitigation Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance o Factor 1 Vendor Risk Mitigation Subfactor 2: Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 3: Technical Narrative o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 4: Data Rights to Conceptual Design Proof of

Concept o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 5: Prototype Schedule o Factor 3 Price

Mandatory Statutory Criteria Before the Agreements Officer considers the vendor eligible for proposal evaluations, the vendor shall satisfy the following statutory requirement:

The vendor shall specify and provide supporting documentation justifying how their company plans to satisfy 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1)(A)-(C) – Appropriate Use of Authority by elaborating on one of the following:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors.

(C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

NOTE 1: Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) = An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards (CAS) prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section (see 10 U.S.C. §3014). The phrase “the solicitation of sources” refers to the initial agreement solicitation only. A nontraditional defense contractor is considered a nontraditional defense contractor for the duration of the prototype project/agreement’s period of performance, or for any in-scope work modified under the same agreement.

NOTE 2: Non-profit research institution is validated by reviewing the vendor’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which is required by the Internal Revenue Service.

NOTE 3: “Significant extent” and “significant participants” may be defined by the vendor providing rationale to one or more of the following variables:

a. Has a significant role / level of involvement in the development, production, or delivery of a product or service.

b. Has a significant impact on the design, development, or production of the product or service.

c. Has significant level of material interest in the success of the product or service.

d. Has significant level of company's financial interest in the success of the product or service.

e. Has Significant level of control over the development, production, or delivery of the product or service.

f. Other significant rationale provided by the vendor.

NOTE 4: Failure to provide supporting documentation may eliminate a company from being considered for an award and the proposal will not be evaluated further.

Evaluation Factors for Award Proposal evaluations will be made using the following factors: Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, Factor 2: Business Process, and Factor 3: Price.

Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation The vendor shall submit performance information for only Subfactor 1:

1. Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance

a. The vendor shall provide recent details on up to two (2) contracts or agreements completed or ongoing within the past five (5) years that best demonstrate the vendor’s experience in:

(1) Structuring and implementing complex business process(es).

(2) Designing and executing successful proof of concept(s) (POCs).

b. The referenced projects should be relevant to this project’s statement of objectives in terms of:

(1) Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or scientific disciplines involved.

(2) Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration).

(3) Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required.

c. For each contract/agreement provided, provide the following:

(1) Contract/Agreement Number: Procurement Instrument Identifier only

(2) Performance Dates: Start, end, ongoing dates within the last 5 years

(3) Dollar Value: Total value of the contract/agreement

(4) Relevance: Clearly and concisely explain how this project demonstrates your capabilities in both business process structuring and POC design. Be specific about the similarities to this project and the successful outcomes achieved.

2. Subfactor 2: Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score

For Subfactor 2, no action is required by the vendor since the AO will pull the vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score from PIEE within five (5) business days from receipt of proposal.

Factor 2: Business Process The vendor shall thoroughly address the following business process Subfactors in their submission:

1. Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan:

a. Subcontracting Plan:

(1) Identification & Expertise: Clearly identify subcontractor(s) (Name, CAGE code, etc.), their expertise, and how their capabilities align with project objectives.

(2) Evidence: Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

(3) Plan and Schedule Integration: Provide detailed plan and integration schedule that demonstrates how:

(a) Prime will integrate work functions with subcontractor(s)

(b) Prime will clearly communicate work functions with subcontractor(s)

(c) Prime will manage subcontractor(s)’quality of performance

(d) Prime will manage subcontractor executable milestones

(4) Risk Mitigation: Provide proactive risk mitigation plan to ensure subcontractors have the capability to perform project objectives on schedule and within cost.

b. Prime In-House Execution Plan

(1) Details & Alignment:

(a) Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the prime will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

(b) Identify details on internal capabilities and resources and identify how capabilities align with project objectives.

(2) Evidence: Provide quantifiable evidence that substantiates the vendor’s capability to achieve project objectives on schedule and within cost.

(3) Advantage: Substantiate advantages of in-house execution for projected milestones to be executed by the prime.

(4) Continuous Improvement: Detail continuous improvement plan on the prime’s strategy to improve processes and performance throughout execution of project objectives.

2. Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution

Plan:

a. Subcontracting Plan:

(1) Identification & Expertise: Detail required subcontracted functions and specific expertise required.

(2) Evidence: Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

(3) Plan and Schedule Integration: Provide detailed plan and integration schedule that demonstrates how:

(a) Prime will integrate work functions with subcontractor(s)

(b) Prime will clearly communicate work functions with subcontractor(s)

(c) Prime will manage subcontractor(s)’quality of performance

(d) Prime will manage subcontractor executable milestones

(4) Risk Mitigation: Provide proactive risk mitigation plan to ensure subcontractors have the capability to perform project objectives on schedule and within cost.

b. Prime In-House Execution Plan:

(1) Details & Alignment:

(a) Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the prime will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

(b) Identify details on internal capabilities and resources and identify how capabilities align with project objectives.

(2) Evidence: Provide quantifiable evidence that substantiates the vendor’s capability to achieve project objectives on schedule and within cost.

(3) Advantages: Substantiate advantages of in-house execution for projected milestones to be executed by the prime.

(4) Continuous Improvement: Detail continuous improvement plan on the prime’s strategy to improve processes and performance throughout execution of project objectives.

3. Subfactor 3: Technical Narrative

a. Discuss general phasing of proposed steps and stages to execute the required work in accordance with the SOO (Statement of Objectives), Performance Parameters and allowable outage constraints.

b. Demonstrate an understanding of the project requirements.

c. Demonstrate an ability to organize and break the complex project requirements down into smaller, logical, executable tasks.

d. Identify reasonable, sufficient, and executable controls to minimize disruption to ongoing operations.

e. Demonstrate a realistic design schedule necessary to accommodate any critical lead times, to include fast tracking, for components or equipment in order to meet required contract schedule and outage timeframe.

f. Demonstrate sound concept of System Operations and System Maintenance.

4. Subfactor 4: Data Rights to Conceptual Design Proof of Concept The vendor shall specify if the Government will have Unlimited Government Use Rights or Limited Government Use Rights to the Proof-of-Concept Conceptual Design.

5. Subfactor 5: Prototype Schedule:

The vendor shall provide the number of calendar days after an award is made, should one be made, it will take to deliver the Business Process and Proof-of-Concept.

Factor 3: Price The vendor shall provide a detailed firm fixed prototype price:

1. Total prototype price consists of the following milestones and is appropriately allocated across the milestones:

a. Kickoff Meeting

b. Finalized Business Process

c. Conceptual Design

d. Option for 30% Design and Statement of Work

e. Option for 60% Design

f. Option for 90% Design

g. Option for 100% Design

2. Total prototype price is supported by proposed labor mix:

a. Labor categories

b. Labor hours assigned to each labor category

c. Labor hour rate assigned to each labor category

3. Refer to Successful Prototype Definition Section for all areas that shall be factored to establish a firm fixed prototype price.

Basis for Award

The Government anticipates awarding up to two (2) firm-fixed price prototype agreements and one potential follow-on production firm-fixed price agreement resulting from this request for prototype proposal to the responsible vendor whose proposal conforms to the requirements, and whose proposal is deemed most advantageous and provides the best value to the Government;

however, the Government reserves the right to cancel, revise or reissue this request for prototype proposal if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Evaluation Process:

Proposal evaluations will progress through a gated approach, as detailed below:

1. Gate 1 Evaluation - Mandatory Statutory Criteria: First, the Government will evaluate the proposal for compliance with the Mandatory Statutory Criteria. In this gate, proposals will be assigned an adjectival rating of either “Pass” or “Fail”, as defined below:

Vendors that do not receive an adjectival rating of “Pass” in this gate will not progress to the next gate in the evaluation process and therefore will be considered ineligible for further award consideration.

2. Gate 2 Evaluation – Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation: Proposals that receive an adjectival rating of “Pass” in the Gate 1 Evaluation will be included in the Gate 2 Evaluation.

In the Gate 2 Evaluation, the Government will evaluate the vendor’s proposal for Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, using a scoring matrix.

There is a maximum of 5-points a proposal can receive in this Factor. There are two subfactors the Government will assess individually to arrive at an overall score for Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance, and Subfactor 2: Vendor Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score.

First, the Government will assess Factor 1 Subfactor 1. Subfactor 1 evaluates the vendor’s submitted past/present performance information in terms of recency and relevancy, which will give the Government a level of expectation of vendor’s capability to execute this project.

The Agreements Officer will assign a numeric score ranging from 1-to-5, as defined in Atch 4 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

o Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Assigned Weight & Calculation

Assigned Weight: Subfactor 1 shall have a 75% weight assigned.

Calculation: Subfactor 1 score * .75 = Subfactor 1 Weighted Score o Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Definitions:

Recent:

• Contract or agreement is within the last five (5) years from Request for

Prototype Proposal issue date.

Relevant:

• Example contract(s) / agreements(s) provided shall demonstrate vendor's capabilities in both business process structuring and proof of concept design and execution that are similar in technical nature, size, and complexity that correlates to this project's Statement of Objectives Performance Parameters (Atch 1) and Statement of Objectives (Atch 2).

o Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or scientific disciplines involved o Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration).

o Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required.

NOTE: For vendor’s that do not have past or present performance information, the Government will assign an overall score of 3, as the vendor will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for this subfactor.

Next, the Government will assess Factor 1 Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 evaluates the vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score by determining the percentage above or below the average SPRS Supplier Risk Score; the average Supplier Risk Score will be determined once the score is pulled from PIEE, within (5) business days, after receipt of proposal.

The Agreements Officer will score the vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score based on the data pulled from PIEE, within five (5) business days, after receipt of proposal. The following calculation will be used to determine the vendor’s score percentage delta above or below the average SPRS Supplier Risk Score using the following calculation:

o Step 1: Vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score – SPRS Average Supplier Risk Score =

Vendor’s Delta Score Above or Below SPRS Supplier Risk Average o Step 2: Vendor’s Delta Score Above or Below SPRS Supplier Risk Average / SPRS Average Supplier Risk Score = % Above or Below Average SPRS Supplier Risk Score

Using the calculated percentage explained above, the Government will assign a numerical score to Subfactor 2: Vendor Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score. The score assigned to this area denotes the degree to which there is supplier risk, with 5 being lowest risk and 1 being highest risk. Scores will be assigned as detailed in Atch 4 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

o Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Assigned Weight & Calculation

Assigned Weight: Subfactor 2 shall have a 25% weight assigned.

Calculation: Subfactor 2 score * .25 = Subfactor 2 Weighted Score o Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Definition

Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score: Provides the Agreements Officer a score for the overall assessment of Agreements Officers can identify “riskier” suppliers and assess the likelihood of the non-fulfillment of terms of agreement, unsuccessful performance, or delivery delays.

SPRS Supplier Risk Score uses 10 factors of performance information to calculate Supplier Risk Scores. These factors are individually weighted (based on age and relative importance) and summed to produce a numerical and color score for every company which has performance data.

NOTE: For vendor’s that do not have a score in SPRS Supplier Risk Score, the Government will assume the vendor falls within the Average SPRS Supplier Risk Score, thus a deviation of 0%. As such, the vendor will be assigned a score of 3 for this area.

Finally, the Government will combine the Subfactor 1 score with the Subfactor 2 score to arrive at a final score for Factor 2: Vendor Risk.

o Factor 1 Final Score = (Subfactor 1 Score * 0.75) + (Subfactor 2 Score * 0.25)

The score assigned to this factor represents the degree of expectation and confidence the Government has in the vendor’s capability to successfully perform the requirement.

NOTE: Subfactor 1 Vendor Risk Mitigation – If the vendor does not have recent and relevant past performance for Subfactor 1 and/or does not have a SPRS Supplier Risk Score available in PIEE for Subfactor 2, the lack of scores for either subfactor will not be taken into consideration for Gate 2.

Proposals that do not receive a minimum score of 2.5 for Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation in Gate 2 Evaluation will not progress to the next gate in the evaluation process and therefore will be considered ineligible for further award consideration.

3. Gate 3 Evaluation – Factor 2: Business Process: Proposals that receive a score of 2.5 points or more in the Gate 2 Evaluation will be included in the Gate 3 Evaluation.

In the Gate 3 Evaluation, the Government will evaluate the vendor’s proposed solutions for Factor 2: Business Process, using a scoring matrix.

There is a maximum of 25-points a proposal can receive for Factor 2: Business Process.

Factor 2 consists of the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan

Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime Inhouse Execution Plan

Subfactor 3: Internal Labor Workforce Staffing Plan Subfactor 4: Data Rights to Conceptional Design Proof of Concept Subfactor 5: Prototype Schedule

Each subfactor will be assigned a numeric score of 1 – 5.

A numeric score for each subfactor within this factor will be assigned using the descriptions provided in the tables detailed below & in Atch 4 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

Proposals that do not receive a minimum score of 13 for Factor 2: Business Process in the Gate 3 Evaluation will not progress to the next gate in the evaluation process and therefore will be considered ineligible for further award consideration.

4. Gate 4 Evaluation: Proposals that receive a score of 13 or more in the Gate 3 Evaluation will be included in the Gate 4 Evaluation. In the Gate 4 Evaluation, the Government will evaluate but not score Factor 3: Price.

Price will be taken into consideration with all other evaluation factors discussed above to determine best value.

First, the Government will combine the scores received for each proposal in Gates 2 (Factor 1) and 3 (Factor 2) to arrive at a Value Rating for each proposal.

As a reminder, vendors could earn a maximum of 5-points in Gate 2 and maximum of 25-points in Gate 3; thus, the maximum total points a vendor can be assigned in the Gate 4 calculation for Value Rating is 30-points.

The proposal with the highest Value Rating will be considered the best solution, and the proposal with the next highest Value Rating will be considered the next best solution.

Next, to evaluate price in relation to value, the Government will perform the calculations show in the table below:

If the highest rated solution cannot be supported by a fair and reasonable price, the vendor’s proposal will be determined unawardable, and the next highest rated solution’s price will become the best solution and evaluated as described above to determine price in relation to value.

5. Evaluation Notes:

At any point during proposal evaluations, the Agreements Officer may give one, some, or all vendors the ability to rectify any aspect of their proposal submission, if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Successful Prototype Definition

1. Business Process: Vendor shall submit the following:

a. Subcontracting Plan:

(1) Subcontracting Plan for the Prototype Phase that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) What function(s) the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform.

(b) Plan to ensure subcontractor(s)’ capability to perform those functions

(c) If the vendor does not plan to subcontract any function of the prototype phase, the vendor shall specify their functions and capabilities.

(2) Subcontracting Plan for the Follow-on Production Phase that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) What function(s) the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform.

(b) Plan to ensure subcontractor(s)’ capability to perform those functions.

(c) If the vendor does not plan to subcontract any function of the production phase, the vendor shall specify their functions and capabilities.

b. Schedule: Preliminary schedule for the full project, identifying, at a minimum, major design, procurement, fabrication, installation, and verification activities as well as the potential timing of all required milestones.

c. Cost Estimate: Rough order of magnitude cost estimate for the full project, including breakouts for design, major procurements, fabrication, installation, and verification.

d. Risk Management Plan:

(1) Risk Management Plan for the Prototype Phase that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Overview of any significant risks to the cost, schedule, technical viability, manufacturability, or performance of the project.

(b) Overview of the likelihood and impact of each identified risk and how each will be mitigated.

(2) Risk Management Plan for the Follow-on Production Phase that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Overview of any significant risks to the cost, schedule, technical viability, manufacturability, or performance of the project.

(b) Overview of the likelihood and impact of each identified risk and how each will be mitigated.

e. Data Rights to Conceptual Design: Documentation identifying whether the Government will have Unlimited Use Rights or Limited Use Rights to all submittals.

f. Business Process Presentation: The Vendor shall provide a complete and detailed presentation that includes all information required as part of the Business Process as defined in this section. All documentation to be provided for review outside of the presentation shall have links to the external files within the presentation.

4. Proof of Concept: Vendor shall provide an acceptable overview of how their company plans to work with the Government to reach an approved Conceptual Design in an expedient manner, if awarded the prototype agreement, by providing, at a minimum, the following:

a. Design Narrative: Narrative that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Brief Summary of the Project

(2) Detailed Project Scope

(3) Clearly Identified Boundaries

(4) Existing Conditions and Infrastructure

(5) Operational Concept

(6) Description of the Recommended Basic Solution or Approach

(7) Brief Description of Alternate Solutions Considered

(8) Justification for Recommended Solution or Approach

(9) Assumptions or Approximations

b. Preliminary Analysis: Analysis and calculation reports necessary to support the proposed solution that include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Preliminary duct wall thickness for inlet section

(2) Preliminary Material Selection

(3) Preliminary thickness of new mounting ring for exhaust bulkhead

(4) Preliminary re-configuration plan

c. Preliminary Drawings: Drawings, sketches, or models necessary to depict the proposed solution that include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) System Interface Diagram

(2) Overall System Schematic or P&ID

(3) General Equipment Layout, including:

(a) Overall Size of each major component

(b) Installation location for each major component

(c) General configuration of each major component

(d) Expected weight of each major component

(e) General routing of connecting piping or conduits

(4) Preliminary Site Plan, including:

(a) Necessary laydown areas for staging and storage

(b) Necessary access routes for heavy equipment (e.g. trucks and cranes)

(c) Necessary setup location(s) for cranes and lifts

d. Tools: List of software packages or analysis tools that will be used to facilitate the design or manage the project.

d. Hazard List: List of hazards that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Potential hazards associated with operation or maintenance of the system

(2) Potential mitigations for each hazard

f. Technology Readiness Assessment: Detailed assessment of the state of readiness for any non-commercial product or non-standard technology.

h. Verification and Validation Plan: List of all expected Verification and Validation activities that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Code-Required Inspection and Testing

(2) Factory Acceptance Testing

(3) Operational Testing

(4) Clear Identification of Any Activities Requiring Government

Support

i. Conceptual Design Presentation: The Vendor shall provide a complete and detailed presentation that includes all information required as part of the Proof of Concept/Conceptual Design as defined in this section. All documentation to be provided for review outside of the presentation shall have links to the external files within the presentation or, The vendor accomplished a particularly favorable or unexpected result that justifies the transition to production.

Prototype Proposal Submission Details

1. Prototype Proposal Due Date:

a. 10 November 2025, 12:00 PM Central Time

2. Prototype Proposal Formatting:

a. Vendors shall directly reference submitted content with each factor and subfactor throughout their proposal to ensure evaluations are streamlined.

b. Word or PDF.

c. Font Size: 11 or 12.

d. Font: Times New Roman, Calibri, or another font that is easily readable. Tables and graphs may be any legible font no smaller than 8-point.

e. No more than 10 pages of content, excluding title page table of contents, glossaries, and NIST SP 800-171 Plan if included.

f. Schedules shall be submitted in native file format.

3. Prototype proposals shall be emailed to Brooke Vandeman

a. Agreements Officer: brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil

If prototype proposal documents cannot be submitted via email due to size or sensitivity, request a DoD Safe Link.

4. It is the vendor’s responsibility to ensure the Agreements Officer receives the submitted proposal. It is recommended the vendor:

a. Embeds a read receipt with submission of proposal.

b. Follow up with the Agreements Officer to ensure the submitted proposal was received.

Notice of Follow-on Production

If one or more prototype award(s) is/are made, and one prototype project is deemed successfully completed and meets the needs of the Air Force, the Government may negotiate and award one follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures. A follow-on production contract or transaction may be awarded to one participant in this transaction without the use of competitive procedures, so long as competitive procedures are used for the selection of parties for participation in the transaction and the participants in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the transaction.

BROOKE Z. VANDEMAN, DAF

Agreements Officer

Attachments:

1. Atch 1 – Statement of Objectives (SOO)

2. Atch 2 – Performance Parameters and Appendices

3. Atch 3 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology

4. Atch 4 – Prototype & Follow-on Production Articles mailto:brooke.vandeman@us.af.mil