GDS JPO JIBM RFWP_FINAL.pdf

Request for White Papers (RFWP)

Joint Integrated Battle Manager (JIBM) Prototype Development

Guam Defense System Joint Project Office (GDS JPO)

Rev 0

Issued by:

Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) 3307 Wells Road

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Request Issue Date: June 13, 2025

Submission Deadline: July 2, 2025 - 4:00 PM Eastern Time

GDS JPO RFWP JIBM (Rev 0)

Table of Contents

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Procedures

1.4 Non-Government Personnel

1.5 Points of Contact

1.6 Response Dates

2.0 Award Information

2.1 Funding

2.2 Instrument Type

2.3 Project Award Value

2.4 Period of Performance

3.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 White Papers

3.2 Format of White Papers

3.3 Content of WPs

3.4 WP Approach

3.5 Submission of WPs

3.6 Solution Presentation

4.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

4.1 PWS Content

4.2 Cost Proposal Content

4.3 Submission of Cost proposal

5.0 Evaluation Information

5.1 White Paper Evaluation Criteria

5.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

6.0 Award Information

7.0 Other Information

7.1 Follow-On Production

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO), on behalf of the Guam Defense System (GDS) Joint Project Office (JPO), is issuing a Request for White Papers (RFWPs) with the intent of awarding one (1) or more Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype (pOTA) in accordance with (IAW) 10 U.S.C. § 4022. Only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware are eligible to submit a white paper.

1.2 Project Description

The JOINT INTEGRATED BATTLE MANAGER (JIBM) is a critical component of the GDS, serving as a joint Command and Control (C2) layer that integrates data from existing Department of Defense (DoD) C2 systems. The C2 data integration provides a comprehensive and unified capability to defend against both ballistic and non-ballistic threats.

White papers are sought to satisfy the GDS JPO requirements to prototype a JIBM in support of the GDS JPO mission. This effort will design, develop, integrate, and test a secure, scalable, and flexible prototype JIBM for capability exercise in 3QFY26 and final delivery of the prototype in

4QFY26.

1.3 Procedures

This RFWP consists of the submission of a White Paper (WP), Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) and demonstrated performance data. If selected, a Request for Prototype Proposal (RFPP) to include a technical submission and cost proposal will be requested. This RFWP satisfies competition IAW 10 U.S.C. § 4022. Key milestones are listed in Table 1 and described in more detail below.

Table 1 RFWP Release Date 13 June 2025 Offeror Submission of CAGE Code 18 June 2025 Release of SOO to Cleared Offerors 18 June 2025 RFWP Questions Cut-off Date 18 June 2025 WP Due Date 2 July 2025

As stated above, only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware are eligible to submit a WP. Interested Offerors shall submit a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and Offeror POC to the following Government Security POC:

- William C. McWhorter, william.c.mcwhorter2.ctr@army.mil

- Hillary S. Roy, hillary.s.roy.civ@army.mil

- Sydney M. Horn, sydney.m.horn.civ@army.mil

Upon validation of facility clearances, the Government will coordinate with the Offeror’s POC to provide the CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) Statement of Objectives (SOO) on the date indicated in Table 1. The SOO will support the creation of the WP technical content and the ROM costing. Offerors shall submit a WP in accordance with the Format of WPs and Content of WPs contained in Section 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code information, or related Vendor errors, will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or WP submissions.

Upon receipt of WPs, the Government will evaluate submitted WPs IAW the specified WP Evaluation Criteria, Section 5.1, to determine which submitted WPs represent the most advantageous solution to the Government. The Government will not consider or evaluate any partial solutions. At that time, the Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation from any Offeror that submitted WPs or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted what is potentially the most advantageous WP solution. This presentation may involve Government feedback for improving what appears to be the best WP(s). Offerors that submitted WPs that are not selected for award (or even additional presentation, if that occurs) may not be notified until after award.

The Government will notify the selected Offeror(s) that submitted a WP deemed to represent the most advantageous solution to provide a cost proposal and Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the Government. Upon receipt of the proposed PWS, the Government will collaborate with the Offeror(s) to finalize the PWS. During this collaboration, the Government may negotiate changes to the PWS to ensure the optimal solution, including reducing risks the Government may have identified in the initial WP, presentation, PWS or proposal. Upon receipt of the cost proposal, the Government will evaluate the cost proposal IAW the specified Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Section

5.2. If the cost proposal is deemed advantageous to the Government and a consensus on the terms of the agreement are agreed to, the Offeror(s) will be awarded the pOTA subject to the availability of funds.

If the evaluated cost proposal is not found to be acceptable or the parties cannot successfully reach a consensus on the terms of the agreement, as determined at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror with the next best WP solution based on the original WP evaluation (and presentation or additional information, if applicable). Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best WP solution, no further engagements with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after the agreement has been awarded. The process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a pOTA is awarded.

All documents necessary for the review and evaluation of WPs, cost proposal submissions and updated PWS shall be provided as described in this RFWP.

1.4 Non-Government Personnel

Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-Government advisors in the review and evaluation of WPs. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition. The non-Government advisors will be required to submit to the Government a Non-Disclosure Agreement reflecting the effort(s) that they will be supporting. The

Offeror’s submission of a WP under this RFWP indicates concurrence with the aforementioned use of non-Government advisors.

Capstone Research 6723 Odyssey Dr NW, Suite 320, Huntsville, AL 35806 POC: Melanie Swinea Email: melanie.swinea@capstoneresearchcorp.com Work phone: 256-724-7951

Summit Technology Research Corporation (TRC) 4532 Research Park Blvd. NW, Huntsville, AL 35806 POC: Michael Hemmer Email: Michael.Hemmer@summittrc.com Work phone: 703-639-7415

Torch Technologies 4090 Memorial Parkway SW, Huntsville, AL 35802 POC: Molly Cook Email: molly.cook@torchtechnologies.com Work phone: 256-319-7422

PeopleTec 4901-I Corporate Dr. NW, Huntsville, AL 35805 POC: Tyler Wilson Email: tyler.wilson@peopletec.com Work phone: 256-319-3892

In accomplishing their duties related to the WP evaluation, the aforementioned firm may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors' WP. Therefore, these firms may execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will: (1) protect the Offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary; and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each Offeror must contact the above company to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each Offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their WP, if applicable.

1.5 Points of Contact

All UNCLASSIFIED questions regarding WP submissions must be emailed to ALL of the following personnel:

1. Hillary Roy, hillary.s.roy.civ@army.mil

2. Sydney M. Horn, sydney.m.horn.civ@army.mil

3. Barbara Cantrell, barbara.a.cantrell2.civ@army.mil mailto:barbara.a.cantrell2.civ@army.mil

1.6 Response Dates

Offerors must submit CAGE Code to Security POCs listed in Section 1.3 no later than 4:00 PM ET on 18 June 2025. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code information, or related Vendor errors will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or WP submissions. All questions regarding this RFWP shall be submitted via email no later than 4:00 PM ET on 18 June 2025 to the points of contact listed in Section 1.5. All contacts listed in Section 1.5 must be included in the email. It is preferred that only one set of questions be submitted by each Offeror instead of submitting multiple sets of questions. Questions received by the Government after 4:00PM ET on 18 June 2025 may not be answered prior to the closing date/time for receipt of white paper submissions. Questions submitted by any method other than email will not be accepted or answered. The Government may post responses to relevant questions received and any amendments issued as a result of submitted questions.

All WPs must be received no later than 4:00 PM ET on 2 July 2025 by the POCs listed in Section

1.5. All contacts listed in Section 1.5 must be included in the email. It is the responsibility of the submitting party to confirm receipt of submissions.

Information and dates regarding questions about, and submission of, cost proposal will be included in the notifications sent to selected Offeror(s).

2.0 Award Information

2.1 Funding

The Government reserves the right to consider all, some, or none of the WPs or cost proposals received in response to this RFWP for selection of award. The Government reserves the right to cancel this RFWP at any time for any reason or for no reason. Issuance of this RFWP does not commit the Government to pay for any preparation costs incurred by the contractor in compiling a response to any aspect of this RFWP. All potential Offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice, and any award is subject to the availability of funding.

2.2 Instrument Type

The preferred instrument type is a pOTA awarded under a firm-fixed-price (FFP) arrangement. This agreement type allows for fixed payable milestones based on the agreed-upon milestone schedule.

Funding arrangements are at the discretion of the Government.

2.3 Project Award Value

Offerors should provide a ROM that is commensurate with the proposed level of effort to complete the proposed approach and meet the requirements of the SOO as outlined herein.

2.4 Period of Performance

The period of performance of the anticipated pOTA is up to 12 months after contract award.

3.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 White Papers

Only UNCLASSIFIED summaries of technical approaches, vendor qualifications and experience history, schedules and ROM costs. WPs shall not contain any information above UNCLASSIFIED or contain any restrictive markings (e.g., SECRET, special access program (SAP), NATO, CNWDI, WNTEL, etc.). The CONFIDENTIAL marking is reserved as a security marking in accordance with AR 380-5 and the NISPOM and shall not be used as a marking for company proprietary information. All material submitted in response to this RFWP must be properly marked. The Government evaluation team reserves the right to request further clarification to enhance our understanding of the Offeror's submittal. The Government’s decision to invite an Offeror to submit a final prototype proposal and cost proposal will be based upon the evaluation results of the WP submission.

In the event of a possible or actual compromise of CLASSIFIED information in the submission of the Offeror’s WP, the Offeror must immediately and within no more than 24 hours, bring this to the attention of the POCs in Section 1.5.

3.2 Format of White Papers

Offerors shall submit the WP IAW the following:

1. Number of Pages: The WP is limited to 10 pages for summary of UNCLASSIFED technical approach, 2 pages for UNCLASSIFIED summary of vendor qualifications and experience history, 1 page for UNCLASSIFIED proposed schedule, and 3 pages for UNCLASSIFIED ROM costs. The WP cover sheet is not included in the page limit. Pages submitted in excess of the WP page limit will not be read or evaluated.

2. Number of Copies & Format: One (1) electronic copy of the response and cover sheet.

3. Text & Font Format: Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8½ x 11-inch paper, with a minimum of one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Font size shall be of minimum 12-point font. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text no less than 9-point font that is easily readable.

4. Security: Do not lock or encrypt any files uploaded as part of your white paper submission. Any locked or encrypted files will not be read or evaluated.

5. Use of a diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is encouraged.

6. WPs containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following sentences on the cover page:

“This WHITE PAPER 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 Offeror 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. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows:

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

7. Questions regarding the objectives or preparation of the WP should be addressed to the POC’s listed in Section 1.5.

3.3 Content of WPs

The Offeror’s WP must include the following:

1. Cover Sheet

Offerors shall provide the following information on the cover sheet:

a. Organization Information: name, mailing address, technical POC, phone number, e-mail address, CAGE code, and Unique Entity ID (UEI)

b. Business POC, phone number, and e-mail address

c. Self-Certification of Offeror: (select all that apply)

(1) Small business

(2) Large business

(3) Academic institution

(4) Non-traditional defense contractor (see definition below)

(5) Other

Non-traditional defense contractor is defined in 10 U.S.C. § 3014 as an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.

3.4 WP Approach

The Offeror will ensure its WP adequately describes the proposed technical approach, capabilities and resulting contributions. The WP shall include the following sections in the order given below, as applicable:

1. Technical Approach: Describe how the proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete and is supported by a technical team that has the expertise and capabilities to accomplish the proposed tasks. The following must be addressed:

a. Project approach to meeting objectives and scope. Present approach to meet the technical characteristics and objectives as identified in the SOO. The GDS JPO will evaluate the entire Technical Approach holistically, considering these desired characteristics.

b. Proposed current and projected capabilities of the Offeror’s JIBM to include innovation.

c. Process and procedures on the development of functionality and interfaces.

d. Ability to integrate within the GDS JPO mission.

e. Overview of tasks and methods planned to achieve each objective and the final product delivery in accordance with the SOO.

f. Identify particular approaches the Offeror will take to ensure successful completion within the clear schedule constraints (e.g., opportunities to accelerate schedule.)

g. Identify and assert any restrictions on the Government's use, release, or disclosure of technical data or computer software pertaining to its solution. If the offeror has no restrictions for a particular section then it shall state “none.” All assertions (including entries of “none”) shall be signed by an authorized representative of the offeror. If all assertions are contained on one page, one signature is sufficient. If the assertions are separated, each assertion shall be signed (separately) as required. The offeror's assertions, including the assertions of its subcontractors or suppliers or potential subcontractors or suppliers, shall be submitted in the required format, dated, and signed by an official authorized to contractually obligate the offeror. The offeror shall provide a detailed discussion of the degree to which asserted data rights restrictions, as well as any proposed option(s) for additional data rights, affect the proposed technical solutions and the Government’s ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose the resulting technical data and computer software for Government purposes as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(12) and DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(11). Note: The data rights assertions are not subject to the page limit specified for this part of the proposal.

2. Schedule: Provide a Gantt chart that outlines work to be performed with deliverables and key milestones, representative of the proposed technical approach.

3. ROM Costs: Describe the estimated costs and proposed fee for the proposed technical approach. Provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) using the Government provided WBS and any assumptions pertaining to price for how this concept could be achieved. For ROM development, the Offeror should provide a breakout of the estimated costs associated with the tasks and methods planned to achieve the proposed technical approach. The Offeror should describe general methods (e.g. expert judgment, analogous estimating, and parametric estimating) used to define estimated costs for the technical approach to meet a capability exercise in 3QFY26 and a JIBM prototype delivery in 4QFY26. If applicable, include any suggested cost share distribution or creative costing approaches to maximize successful completion within the constrained schedule.

4. Qualifications and Experience

a. Limited to the past five (5) years, related prior or current work, identify Offeror’s roles and responsibilities:

Related prior or current work, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contracts and Independent Research & Development (IR&D) projects related to the development and integration of joint battle managers similar in scope and complexity to the solution described in the SOO. Provide contract numbers and POCs for Government sponsored efforts.

b. Identify team member role assignments and each team member's qualifications and experiences in comparison to the respective SOO performance requirement(s) the team members are proposed to perform.

If the Offeror proposes the use of one or more NDCs, the following information is required for each participating NDC:

(1) Legal Name, CAGE code and UEI

(2) Explanation of how proposed NDC meets 10 U.S.C. § 3014 definition

(3) Contribution to the effort, based on at least one of the following factors:

• Supplying new key technology or products

• Causing a material reduction in the cost or schedule; and/or

• Creating a material increase in performance

c. Identify how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1):

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

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

3.5 Submission of WPs

Information and dates regarding questions about, and submission of, WPs are stated above in Section 1.6.

Late submissions will not be accepted, and any other failure to comply with WP submission instructions (content, approach, etc.) may not be evaluated by the Government.

3.6 Solution Presentation

Prior to invitation to submit cost proposals, the Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation, either in person or virtually, from all Offerors, some Offerors, or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous WP solution.

4.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

When invited to do so by the Government, an Offeror may develop and submit a proposal. A proposal is defined as a cost proposal and accompanying PWS. A notification will be sent to the Offeror(s) that submitted a WP that represents the most advantageous solution, requesting the Offeror(s) to submit a cost proposal.

4.1 PWS Content

1. The Offeror shall utilize Government SOO to develop proposed PWS performance requirements.

2. The Offeror shall identify the primary performer and the performer’s certification status (non-traditional/traditional defense contractor) for each task.

3. The Offeror shall address and include all applicable deliverables.

4.2 Cost Proposal Content

1. Proposed detailed schedule

2. Proposed Milestone Payment Schedule

3. Data Rights, to include subcontractors and suppliers

4. Price (broken out by cost (detailed cost elements)) and profit

5. Subcontractor and supplier team roles, responsibilities and deliverables

Additional proposal and proposal formatting instructions may be provided in the notification to the selected Offeror.

The maximum page count for the cost proposal is three (3) pages. All pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2- by 11-inch paper with a font size not smaller than 12-point. Font sizes no smaller than 9-point may be used for figures, tables and charts. Document files must be in .rtf, .txt, Portable Document Format (.pdf, ISO 32000-1), OpenDocument (.odx, ISO/IEC 26300:2006), .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats. Submissions must be written in English.

The proposal must include a detailed timeline, including technical milestones and a schedule of deliverables. Payments will be made in accordance with the proposed Milestone Payment Schedule.

The milestones on the Milestone Payment Schedule SHALL be based on meaningful and identifiable events and associated deliverables (monthly reports are not acceptable milestones).

Payment will be made when those deliverables are accepted by the Government, and at no other time. As such, if a proposer is expecting to be paid monthly, then the proposal must include a Milestone Payment Schedule detailing monthly meaningful deliverables (e.g., incremental code drops, test results, etc.). The proposer should take this into account when planning their schedule.

For the prime and subcontractors, the proposal must include a detailed breakout of how the money will be spent and how prices and rates were determined. Direct and Indirect rates must be justified based on past commercial or Government rates, or by providing examples of equivalent rates for equivalent talent. If rates are based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) negotiated rates, the rate agreements shall be provided.

4.3 Submission of Cost proposal

Cost proposal(s) shall be submitted IAW the response dates provided in the notification to the selected Offeror(s). Failure to timely provide a complete cost proposal, to timely negotiate, or to satisfactorily agree to Government terms and cost/price goals may result in the prompt de-selection of your WP, allowing the Government to seek another proposal.

5.0 Evaluation Information

5.1 White Paper Evaluation Criteria

WPs will be evaluated using four (4) criteria. These criteria are listed below, in descending order of importance with evaluation criteria #3 and #4 of equal importance. The Government reserves the right to review the content of WPs against various AI tools to determine whether it appears Offerors relied on AI to write and submit WPs. If the Government, in its sole discretion does this, and receives indication that a WP correlates closely to AI provided solutions, this will be viewed as an indication of a lack of knowledge and understanding by the Vendor, and the solution may be determined unacceptable or otherwise negatively rated.

1. WP Evaluation Criteria #1: Technical Approach

a. The Government will evaluate acceptability of the Offeror's capability and approach to accomplish the technical objectives of the SOO. To be assessed as acceptable, the response must:

(1) Present a sound understanding of the overall objectives and technologies involved as demonstrated by a feasible, executable, and comprehensive approach to satisfying the objectives of the SOO and effective approaches for identifying, eliminating and mitigating risks.

(2) Quality of the software design, architecture, technology stack, scalability, modularity, and integration approach with an understanding of the supporting command and control systems.

(3) Demonstrated success and readiness level (TRL) of the proposed solution. Viable path to a fielded JIBM capability.

(4) Development methodology (e.g., Agile/Scrum) to ensure delivery per the SOO no later than 3QFY26.

(5) Propose software available to carry out the proposed effort and meet or exceed requirements of the SOO as well as meeting security requirements and identification of available licenses, certifications, and/or permits that are required to meet the objectives of the SOO.

(6) The evaluation of this criteria will also consider the degree to which asserted data rights restrictions, as well as any proposed option(s) for additional data rights, affect the proposed technical solutions and the Government's ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or disclose the resulting technical data and computer software for Government purposes as defined in DFARS 252.227- 7013(a)(12) and 252.227-7014(a)(11) in terms of demonstrating its ability to execute the proposed approach. Emphasis will be placed on the Government’s ability to use, release, and disclose technical data or computer software documentation and preference may be given to white paper submissions with the least amount of data rights restrictions.

2. WP Evaluation Criteria #2 – Schedule

a. Whether the proposed schedule sufficiently correlated to the proposed technical approach, is realistic and executable to meet the SOO objectives within the stated requested time, and reflects a clear understanding of the Government’s objectives.

3. WP Evaluation Criteria #3 – ROM Cost

a. Whether the proposed cost or price is sufficiently correlated to the proposed technical approach, is realistic and affordable to meet the SOO objectives within the stated requested time, and whether the proposed cost/price generally reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

4. WP Evaluation Criteria #4: Qualifications and Experience

The Government will assess the acceptability of the Offeror's qualifications and experience for accomplishing all requirements. To be assessed as acceptable, the response must:

a. Present relevance of related prior or current work experience for the rapid development and integration of a JIBM of the nature or complexity as that described in the SOO.

b. Present effective team member role assignments in terms of each team member's qualifications and experiences in comparison to the respective SOO performance requirement(s) the team members are proposed to perform and reflect team member qualifications and experiences that ensures comprehensive coverage of all SOO performance requirements.

5.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the cost/price and will evaluate whether the proposed cost/price reflect an understanding of and ability to meet the Government’s objectives.

Offerors shall describe the labor mix and labor hours necessary in sufficient detail to give evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s approach. The Offeror shall map hours to the appropriate PWS paragraph. Concurrent to this evaluation, the Government will ensure that the proposed PWS accurately reflects the full breadth of the project, including properly addressing the Government SOO and specific tasks, deliverables and milestones required to successfully complete the prototype project. As needed, the Government may negotiate with the Vendor to adjust the PWS, cost/price and other terms before award.

If agreement cannot be reached with the Offeror whose proposal is initially assessed to present the most advantageous technical approach, the Government will evaluate Cost/Price and PWS for the proposal of the Offeror with the next best technical solution. If additional funding subsequently becomes available, and funding of additional awards becomes possible, the Government will evaluate Cost/Price for the proposal of the Offeror(s) with the next best technical solution(s).

6.0 Award Information

Awards of prototype projects as a result of this announcement will be in the form of a pOTA. To receive an award, the Offeror(s) must be in compliance with the statutory requirements at 10 U.S.C. § 4022.

To receive an award, an Offeror must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and must have a UEI number. This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the right party. The Offeror must be considered a responsible party by the Agreements Officer, must not be suspended or debarred from such agreement by the Federal Government, and must not be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order or law from receiving such award.

7.0 Other Information

7.1 Follow-On Production

The authority at 10 U.S.C. § 4022, paragraph (f) provides the authority to enter into awards for follow-on production to successful participants of an agreement under the authority of a pOTA utilizing competitive procedures. This effort anticipates the need for possible follow-on production efforts. The requirement for competition has been met through the RFWP process, and upon successful completion of the prototype project and subject to the availability of funds, the Government reserves the right to proceed into a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract or production OTA on a non-competitive basis. This prototype project will be deemed completed and successful upon the result of the system characterization, as the Government determines.