HMIF C-sUAS RFWP.pdf

Request for White Papers (RFWP)

Human-Machine Integrated Formations

Counter-small UAS Requirement

Issued by:

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

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Request Issue Date: 18 March 2024

Submission Deadline: 12 April 2024

RFWP/CSOW H-MIF C-sUAS

Table of Contents

1. Introduction/Background

2. Project Description

3. Government Objectives and Approach

3.1. Key Features (Statement of Objectives)

3.2. Preliminary Design

3.3. Final Design

3.4. Operational Prototype Production

3.5. Test and Demonstrations

3.6. Data Deliverables:

3.7. Environmental and Safety

3.8. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government Furnished

Information (GFP/GFE/GFI)

3.9. Period of Performance (POP)/Delivery Date

4.0 Procedures

5.0 Non-Government Personnel

6.0 Points of Contact

7.0 Response Dates

8.0 Contract Structure & Funding Availability

8.1 Funding

8.2 Instrument Type

8.3 Project Award Value

9.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

9.1 White Papers & CSOW

9.2 Format of RFWP Submittals

9.3 Content of WP Cover Sheet

9.4 WP Approach & CSOW/ROM Content

9.5 Timeliness of RFWP Submissions

9.6 Solution Presentation

10.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

10.1 Technical Content

10.2 Cost Proposal Content

10.3 Submission of Cost proposal

11.0 Evaluation Information

11.1 White Paper & CSOW Evaluation Criteria

11.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

11.3 Offeror Exchanges

12.0 Award Information

13.0 Other Information

13.1 Follow-On Production Work

13.2 Security & Anti-Terrorism Operations Security (AT-OPSEC)

1. Introduction/Background

The U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) is issuing this Request for White Papers (RFWP) with the intent of awarding an Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype (pOTA) in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022. The RCCTO would like to invite interested entities to provide white paper technical solutions to the entirety of the requirements outlined herein. The Army designated a RCCTO and Army Futures Command (AFC) team to find and prototype integrated solutions for robotics in order to develop and manage a human-machine integrated formation (H-MIF) architecture that will guide emerging Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS) capabilities. This team will utilize demonstrations, prototyping, testing and evaluations of existing and new technologies using soldier touch points that will enable valuable warfighter feedback with the systems to enable lessons learned and drive system improvements.

The team will address current robotic safety limitations that do not support an operational leave behind capability. They will fully characterize and address any issues associated with the network and command and control (C2) aspects of robotic systems, their payloads, and H-MIF interaction requirements. They will define priorities and consistent requirements paths for robotic payloads;

align operational use cases with the maturation roadmap of enabling technology and the robotic behaviors; and promote rapid procurement of the latest industry RAS and enabler investments to fill critical technology gaps.

The RCCTO invites interested entities to review this embedded statement of objectives (SOO) in Section 3 below and provide comments, inputs, and technical write ups for products/solutions that could meet or exceed these objectives for a Counter-small Unmanned Aerial System (C-sUAS) solution/capability that will be integrated into robotic platforms as part of the overarching H-MIF deliverable.

The exponential growth of UAS creates new risks on the battlefield. Technology trends are dramatically transforming legitimate applications of UAS while simultaneously making them increasingly capable weapons in the hands of the enemy. These systems could provide adversaries with a low-cost means of conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions against—or attacking—U.S. forces. Furthermore, many smaller UASs cannot be detected by traditional air defense systems due to their size, construction material, and flight altitude. The Army must protect and defend personnel, facilities, and assets in an environment where increasing numbers of UAS’ will share the skies. In response, the H-MIF C-sUAS effort has been initiated to develop robotic infantry and armor platoon capabilities to detect and defeat Group 1&2 threat UAS. The C-sUAS should be able to disrupt the threat posed by small UAS as well as the indirect threat posed by small UAS used for targeting. Further development of U.S. Army counter-UAS capabilities and an effective counter-UAS approach are essential to meeting the challenges of the battlefields of today and the battlefields of future.

Only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware are eligible to submit a white paper. All offerors must already have an active SIPRNet, the RCCTO WILL NOT SPONSOR an offeror for a SIPRNet.

The RCCTO cautions Offerors that this RFWP will be used first to inform current and future requirements and might not be used to award any prototype projects. However, responses and evaluations may be shared with similar Department of Defense (DoD) agencies who may pursue this technology and the RCCTO may utilize this RFWP to assist with the formation of contracts in conjunction with or on behalf of those other DoD agencies.

2. Project Description

The Army RCCTO seeks solutions and approaches to design, build, test, and deliver a C-sUAS that can operate in a RAS contested environment, This C-sUAS effort will build on the work and demonstrations of prior C-sUAS efforts conducted by various DoD entities. The derived operational specifications and evaluation criteria will be employed to develop selected candidate C-sUAS platforms as operational prototypes that can integrate with existing unmanned Army ground vehicles. Implementations of the H-MIF C-sUAS effort must be capable of enduring operations without impacting operational speed and tempo.

The RCCTO requests White Papers (WPs), a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), and a Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW) to satisfy the RCCTO’s requirements to develop and deliver a quantity of twelve (12) systems. The desired characteristics, features, and objectives of the C-sUAS are as follows in Section 3.0.

3. Government Objectives and Approach

C-sUAS Electronic Warfare shall be capable of data, power, and physical integration with autonomous DoD vehicles. H-MIF C-sUAS solutions shall adopt a modular open systems approach (MOSA) in their offerings. The solution is envisioned to be a non-kinetic system that can be employed autonomously or operated manually.

3.1. Key Features (Statement of Objectives)

This effort will focus primarily on the development of a deployable and sustainable mature operational prototype that implements the capabilities identified herein:

1. System optimal SWaP requirements of intended H-MIF platforms.

a. SIZE: Envelop: 25” L x 12.5” W x 36”H

b. WEIGHT: less than 200 lbs.

c. POWER: if Interoperability Profile (IOP) up to 250w if AC/DC 1KW

2. System shall be capable of integrating with DoD robotic systems, to include Software Development Kits (SDK), Small Multipurpose Equipment Transports (S-MET), Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV) platforms. Technical support is required up to 27 months from contract award and will start upon delivery of the systems.

3. System shall interface to existing Army systems using MOSA agreed upon standards.

4. The C-sUAS solution should be of mature design with exit Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of

7+(T), with higher TRL levels most desirable (O).

5. System shall interoperate with Army C2 systems using MIL-STD messages & protocols.

6. System shall integrate with H-MIF platforms and H-MIF network. It is desired that the C UAS system also integrate with other C2 systems, and situational awareness, and tracking systems, such as ATAK and JBC-P, and notify payload operators of detections and non-kinetic engagements.

7. System shall be capable of operating automated on a mobile platform within the context of operator command.

8. System shall disrupt the threat posed by small UASs and the indirect threat posed by small UASs used for targeting. For example, disrupt sensors and/or communications equipment onboard adversarial UAS. System shall be capable of Non-kinetic Electromagnetic Attack (EA) capabilities with ability of engaging threats at 1km (T) to 5km (O).

9. Systems shall have passive Radio Frequency (RF) scanning capability.

10. System shall utilize passive, Electromagnetic Support (ES) receivers for 360-degree threat detection with the ability to direct, find, and identify Group 1&2 UAS threats.

11. System shall be capable of defeating Group 1-2 UAS from nation state to commercial systems.

12. System shall detect, track, and defeat a single threat UAS at 10km (T) to 20km (O), to include UAS classification and identification.

13. System shall provide C-sUAS operator: visual and/or aural alerts when threat detected, Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) location of threats and status updates.

14. The system shall be capable of remote and wired software updates and threat-load reprograming updates.

Desired Functions and Features

1. If available, System should integrate with vehicle sensors, such as radar and optical systems, to enable advanced countermeasures.

2. If available, System should provide information to integrated systems to aid tracking and classification of adversarial UAS.

3. System should have a “whitelist/blacklist” feature.

4. System should have a geo-locate capability.

5. System should detect, track, and defeat threat multiple/swarm UAS at 10km (T) to 20km (O), to include UAS classification and identification.

6. System must be capable of jamming known commonly used radio bands.

7. System should be able to provide user with confirmation of applied effects on intended target.

8. System should be capable of operating in a contested environment, including threats to GPS and other GNSS.”

9. No Field Service Representative Support Necessary after integration completion; Near-zero maintenance after fielding.

10. System has been or is currently deployed.

System demonstrated with Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO) and is listed on JCO recommendation MFR dated 25 May 2023. If the system is on the JCO list, we will consider evidence of technical maturity. If the system is not listed on the JCO recommendation list the vendor must provide data to prove performance specifications and mature TRL.

Develop and deliver a H-MIF C-sUAS Operational Prototype with logical program phases identified in the proposed solution to achieve the capabilities identified herein. (C-sUAS contractors are encouraged to submit phases that will help to streamline and expedite overall program schedule and costs.) Contractors are to provide a CSOW following the form/format of the attached H-MIF SOW template that outlines the steps/phases, test schedules, and hardware and data deliverables for their solution (see attached SOW example/template).

3.2. Preliminary Design

Selected offeror(s) will develop an initial design for C-sUAS and will present the design as part of a preliminary design review (PDR). The PDR may be accompanied by a demonstration or test event in which the initial design is made available for test and review. Any preliminary design is anticipated to be at least TRL 7 and will demonstrate the capability for continued efforts to meet all requirements of the program. A PDR CDRL will outline the requirements and deliverables for demonstrating and documenting the C-sUAS design.

3.3. Final Design

The selected offeror(s) will refine the H-MIF C-sUAS design during this period. A refined C-sUAS system design to be at least TRL 7 (T) (or higher (O)). Further refinement will mature the design for a critical design review (CDR) where the C-sUAS system will be fully integrated with the host vehicle platform, at approximately TRL 7+ (T) or higher (O).

3.4. Operational Prototype Production

Any C-sUAS design must be finalized expeditiously, including documentation of all interfaces, and will produce operational prototypes of at least TRL 7+. The design will be presented in an operational readiness review (ORR). The ORR will be accompanied by demonstration(s) or test, in which a set of first-article systems will be demonstrated to be fully operational in “field” conditions. This phase will conclude with delivery of operational prototype systems.

Deliverables for this period include, at a minimum:

• ORR design documentation and report o Interface Control Documents (ICDs) o Technical Data Package (TDP)

• Demonstration/test report(s)

• Operational prototype systems – QTY 12

3.4.1 System Integration Support Hardware and Software

3.4.2 Technical, Operational/User, and Training Manuals

3.5. Test and Demonstrations

Test and validation events are anticipated throughout any development and integration process, with advancement of the system TRL evident at each demonstration. Demonstrations will be conducted at locations identified by the government and are anticipated to include relevant vehicle platforms and end-users.

3.6. Data Deliverables:

The number, nature, and type of Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) and Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) is highly dependent on a contractor’s proposed solution and its level of technology maturity. The below is a list of common DIDs used to document some of the RCCTO’s prior programs. Contractors shall be required to deliver appropriate DIDs reflective of its proposed solution, and contractors are encouraged to add other DIDs that support the proposed solution during the proposed Period of Performance. The following are typical CDRLs/DIDs used for prior Army developmental projects:

1. Kick-Off Meeting/System Requirements Review

2. Monthly Status Reports (MSRs)

3. Test Plans for Performance Validation, both laboratory and field tests

4. Test Reports for Performance Validation, both laboratory and field tests

5. Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

6. Critical Design Review (CDR)

7. Operational Readiness Review (ORR)

8. Technical Exchange Meetings & Reports

9. Demonstration and/or Soldier Touch Point (STP) Reports following each event

10. Interface Control Documents (ICD)

11. Technical, Operational/User, and Training Manuals

12. Technical Data Package (TDP)

13. Software Documentation

14. Authority to Operate (ATO) Artifacts (for any network applications)

15. Safety Assessment Report (SAR)

16. System Training Package/User Training Manuals, both hardware & software

17. Software Requirements Specification (SRS)

18. Final Closeout Review Meeting & Report

3.7. Environmental and Safety

The solution developed under this SOO will be tested for design safety and that it will not interfere with vehicle operations. It is anticipated that a formal Authorization to Operate (ATO) will be issued by the Designated Approving Authority for integration into DoD systems as part of the effort to integrate with various host vehicles and Associated network. It is anticipated that Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) will conduct a system safety review.

3.8. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government

Furnished Information (GFP/GFE/GFI) GFE may include access to Army remotely controlled autonomous and/or manned vehicles for form fit and function.

3.9. Period of Performance (POP)/Delivery Date

Materiel delivery is desired within 6 months of contract award. Timeline for engineering efforts to integrate into robotic platforms as part of the overarching H-MIF deliverable is anticipated to be approximately 8 months from contract award. Specifics of schedule may vary with offeror proposal . Support of the C sUAS system shall be required for 27 months from contract award to ensure system continued function during the course of the H-MIF program.

4.0 Procedures

This RFWP consists of the submission of a White Paper (WP), ROM, CSOW, 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 is considered a competitive process.

Key milestones are listed in Table 1 and described in more detail below.

Table 1 RFWP Release Date 18 Mar. 2024 RFWP Questions Cut-off Date 27 Mar. 2024 WP/CSOW Due Date 12 Apr. 2024

The C-sUAS SOO supports the creation of the WP technical content, a draft CSOW, and the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costing. Offerors shall submit a WP in accordance with the format and content instructions in Section 9.0 and contractor best practice WP format; the CSOW submittal will follow the form/format of the H-MIF SOW template. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code information, or related Offeror errors, will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or submissions. Note: If an Offeror wishes to propose multiple solutions, they must propose those approaches in separate WPs.

Upon receipt of WPs and CSOW, the Government will evaluate submitted WPs/CSOW IAW the specified WP/CSOW Evaluation Criteria, Section 11.0, to determine which submissions represent the most advantageous solution to the Government. At that time, the Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation from any Offeror that made a submission, or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous WP solution. Offerors that made a submission that are not selected for award at this time may not be notified until after award.

Except in situations such as those noted in below, the Government will notify the selected Offeror that submitted the WP/CSOW deemed to represent the most advantageous solution to provide a cost proposal and a final technical submittal against a proposed Government Statement of Work (GSOW) to the Government. Upon receipt of the cost and final technical submittal, the Government may collaborate with the Offeror to finalize the SOW to ensure mutual agreement to the technical deliverables. Upon receipt of the cost proposal, the Government will evaluate the cost proposal IAW the specified Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Section 11.0. If the cost proposal is deemed advantageous to the Government, the GSOW is mutually agreeable, and a consensus on the terms of the agreement are agreed to, the Offeror will be awarded the pOTA, subject to the availability of funding.

If the evaluated cost proposal is not found to be acceptable or the parties cannot successfully reach a consensus on the GSOW or 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/CSOW solution based on the original WP/CSOW evaluation. Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best WP/CSOW solution, no further engagements may occur with the previous Offeror until after the agreement has been awarded. All documents necessary for the review and evaluation of C-sUAS submittals shall be provided as described in this RFWP.

5.0 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 use of non- Government advisors.

1. Apex Sourcing, LLC, Glen Lakes, FL 34613, (443) 981-9557, (POC G. Davies)

2. Radiance Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, AL (760) 717-5651, (POC Sean Dempsey)

3. The MITRE Corporation, McClean, VA (410) 272-4338 (POC Christine Rini)

4. Blue Sky Innovators, Tysons Corner, VA (202) 630-6632 (POC Brad Sams)

5. Exponent, Inc, Phoenix, AZ (703)581-8715) (POC Dan Kinsley)

In accomplishing their duties related to the RFWP evaluation, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors' submittals. 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 submittal, if applicable.

6.0 Points of Contact

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

1. Simone Brightmon, simone.l.brightmon.civ@army.mil

2. Tessa Jones, tessa.a.jones.civ@army.mil

3. Jolynda Ivy, jolynda.v.ivy.civ@army.mil

7.0 Response Dates

All questions regarding this RFWP shall be submitted via email no later than 1600 EST on 27 March 2024 to all of the points of contact listed in Section 6.0. 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 1600 EST on 27 March 2024 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 will post responses to SAM.gov for all questions received and any amendments issued as a result of submitted questions.

All RFWP submittals must be received no later than 1600 EST on 12 April 2024 by all of the POCs listed in Section 6.0. It is the responsibility of the submitting party to confirm receipt of submissions.

The Government will provide additional information and instructions, including submission dates and clarifications, in a request for a final proposal submission and cost proposal to the selected Offeror(s).

8.0 Contract Structure & Funding Availability

8.1 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 and any such costs are not allowable or allocable to any USG contract or agreement. 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.

8.2 Instrument Type

The preferred instrument type is a pOTA awarded as a firm-fixed price contract. This contract type allows for fixed payable milestones based on the agreed-upon milestone schedule. Funding arrangements are at the discretion of the Government.

mailto:joshua.e.flinn.civ@army.mil mailto:brian.j.burton.mil@army.mil mailto:jolynda.v.ivy.civ@army.mil

8.3 Project Award Value

Offerors should provide ROMs & cost proposals that are commensurate with the proposed level of effort to complete the proposed approach and meet the requirements of the SOO as outlined herein.

9.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

9.1 White Papers & CSOW

Only UNCLASSIFIED submittals will be accepted. The Government’s decision to invite an Offeror to submit a final proposal and cost proposal will be based upon the evaluation results of the RFWP submissions.

In the event of a possible or actual compromise of classified information in your submission, immediately and within no more than 24 hours, bring this to the attention of the POCs in Sections 6.0.

9.2 Format of RFWP Submittals

Offerors shall submit the WP IAW the following:

1. Number of Pages: The WP is limited to ten (10) pages. There is no maximum page for the CSOW or the ROM. 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 WP, CSOW, ROM, 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 legible diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is encouraged.

6. All RFWP submittals shall be UNCLASSIFIED. Submittals 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 6.0.

9.3 Content of WP Cover Sheet

The Offeror’s WP Cover Sheet 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 Tax Identification Number (TIN)

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 (NDC) 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.

9.4 WP Approach & CSOW/ROM Content

Ensure your submittals adequately describes the proposed 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 to accomplish the proposed task is feasible, achievable, and complete, meeting or exceeding Government objectives. The technical approach, in addition to the list below, should address the approach to develop the C-sUAS. Address the following:

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

b. Proposed capabilities of the Offeror’s system to include performance data.

c. Inclusion of Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA) into the design process and solution.

d. Overview of tasks and methods planned to accomplish the technical approach and the C-sUAS to be delivered as part of the base agreement that supports the contract PoP.

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

f. Present scalability of prototype production methods, commercial items, and resources in order to meet the Government’s schedule.

g. Identify and assert any restrictions on the Government's use, release, or disclosure of technical data or computer software pertaining to its proposal submission. 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. Qualifications and Experience

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

(1) Offeror’s projects related to the development and demonstration of C-sUAS in a robotic environment or in similar settings, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contracts and Independent Research & Development (IR&D).

(2) Offeror’s projects related to the integration of C-sUAS onto Army tactical and combat vehicles, or other DoD applications, and testing of those systems, including SBIR/STTR contracts and IR&D projects.

b. Identify team member(s) 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 and CAGE code;

(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

(4) Anticipated dollar value of the proposed NDC’s contribution

c. Identify key technical and management personnel proposed to execute the program.

d. Facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed effort and how they meet or exceed required tolerances and precisions. Provide evidence of quality control program processes (example: ISO 9001 certification), indicate the number and level of clean rooms available and indicate what manufacturing processes will be included in the design.

3. Content for the CSOW: Offerors are to draft a CSOW that clearly outlines the work and tasks that will be required to deliver a complete C-sUASs. The objectives and key features as identified Section 3 should be considered and met or exceeded in the CSOW.

The CSOW should unambiguously outline the contractor’s proposed effort. The attached CSOW format should be adhered to and include all tasks, milestones, H/W & S/W deliverables, as well as Data Item Deliverables (DIDs). The CSOW must align with the SOO. The requirements and objectives in the C-sUAS SOO will be used by offerors to develop, draft, and submit a CSOW that clearly outlines the contractor’s proposed effort. The CSOW submittal shall detail and structure a sound technically viable program, which is innovative, affordable, designed to be executable, and able to satisfy (meet or exceed) Government objectives. The CSOW must clearly align with the SOO and must be submitted in the form/format of the attached H-MIF CSOW Template to the maximum extent possible.

ROM Costs: Describe the estimated costs for the proposed technical approach. Provide a ROM cost by WBS element (not price), and any assumptions pertaining to cost and suggested fee. If the ROM cost includes a Management Reserve to address risk, segregate Management Reserve in the ROM cost. 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.

Segregate labor costs, labor hours, materials, overhead costs, and subcontractor costs. The Offeror should describe general methods (e.g. expert judgment, analogous estimating, actual costs/prior Pos, and parametric estimating) used to define estimated costs for the technical approach. Identify long lead items in terms of ROM costs and required dates to purchase or begin fabrication to deliver according to contract PoP. Provide assumptions of any Government Furnished Information, Software or Material. If applicable, include any suggested cost share distribution or creative costing approaches to maximize successful completion within the constrained schedule.

Use the following WBS categories for ROM Cost (use only applicable categories)

1.01 Development Engineering

1.01.01 Development Engineering Hardware

1.01.02 Development Engineering Software

1.02 Producibility Engineering and Planning (PEP)

1.03 Development Tooling

1.04 Prototype Manufacturing

1.05 Systems Engineering/Program Management

1.06 Systems Test and Evaluation (ST&E)

1.06.01 Development Test & Evaluation

1.06.02 Operational Test & Evaluation

1.06.03 Mock-Ups/System Integration Lab

1.06.04 Test and Evaluation Support

1.06.05 Test Facilities

1.06.06 Other Testing

1.07 Training

1.08 Data

1.09 Support Equipment

1.09.01 Peculiar Support Equipment

1.09.02 Common Support Equipment

1.10 Other RDT&E

1.11 Management Reserve

1.12 H-MIF System Integration

9.5 Timeliness of RFWP Submissions

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

9.6 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 or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous WP solution.

10.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

When invited to do so by the Government by Request for Prototype Proposal (RFPP), an Offeror may develop and submit a follow-on formal proposal. A formal proposal is defined as a cost proposal against an accompanying GSOW. A notification will be sent to the Offeror(s) that submitted package that represents the most advantageous solution, requesting the Offeror(s) to submit a final proposals and cost volume. Only UNCLASSIFIED proposals will be accepted.

10.1 Technical Content

1. Shall utilize the Government’s SOW, which will have evolved from the offeror’s original

CSOW, to develop a refined technical solution based on the original submittals. It is expected that dialog between the Government and the Offeror will have predated the request for the final proposal.

2. Any red-line adjustments to the GSOW that the offeror makes in its final submission will need to be adjudicated and may delay or negate the award process. However, the goal is to establish a mutually agreeable GSOW that can be placed on contract.

3. Shall identify the primary performer and the performer’s certification status (non-traditional/traditional defense contractor) for each task.

4. Shall address and include all applicable deliverables.

10.2 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. There is no maximum page count for the cost proposal. 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.

10.3 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 submittal, allowing the Government to seek another proposal.

11.0 Evaluation Information

11.1 White Paper & CSOW Evaluation Criteria

WPs and CSOWs will be evaluated using three (3) criteria. These criteria are listed below, in descending order of importance. Any failure to comply with RFWP submission instructions (content, approach, etc.) may cause your submission to not be evaluated by the Government.

1. WP/CSOW Evaluation Criteria #1: Technical Approach

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

(1) Present task schedule, key milestones, projected timelines and proposed critical path(s) consistent with the proposed technical approach to ensure delivery of up to twelve (12) C-sUAS systems (as defined above) according to contract PoP.

(2) Present approach to meet or exceed the technical characteristics, objectives, and threshold requirements as outlined in the SOO. The RCCTO will evaluate the entire Technical Approach holistically, considering these required characteristics.

(3) Ability to incorporate system hardware, software, and interface commonality through MOSA into processes and system design.

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

(5) Proposed approach of how the prototype C-sUAS will be developed, tested, and delivered.

(6) Demonstrate strategic supplier relationships or plans that address, mitigate, and resolve supply chain issues within the unique directed energy industrial base.

(7) Scalability of prototype production methods and resources in order to meet the Government’s schedule.

(8) 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.

2. WP Evaluation Criteria #2: 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 relevant related prior or current work experience for the development of C-sUAS designed for military application. Provide related prior or current work experience for integration of C-sUAS and testing of those systems. Provide related prior or current work experience for C-sUAS sustainment and conducting Soldier training and touchpoints.

b. Present effective and qualified 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. Identify sufficiently qualified key technical and management personnel to successfully execute the proposed technical approach and support SOO performance requirements.

c. Propose facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed effort and meet or exceed required tolerances and precisions, 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. Provide evidence of a quality control program (example: ISO 9001 certification), indicate what manufacturing processes will be included in the design.

3. WP Evaluation Criteria #3 – ROM Cost

Whether the proposed cost is realistic and affordable for the proposed technical approach to the extent appropriate and whether the proposed cost generally reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

11.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the cost proposal and will evaluate whether the proposed cost reflects an understanding of 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 and to allow evaluations to determine the realism of the offered figures to accomplish the effort. Concurrent to this evaluation, the Government will ensure that the proposed SOW accurately reflects the full breadth of the project, including properly addressing the Government SOW and specific tasks, deliverables and milestones required to successfully complete the prototype project. As needed, the Government may negotiate with the Offeror to adjust the SOW, 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 SOW for the proposal of the Offeror with the next best technical solution. Additionally, if the proposal of the Offeror whose WP is initially assessed to present the most advantageous technical approach does not clearly correlate to the initial ROM cost, the Government reserves the right to forego moving forward with that initially selected Offeror and request a proposal from the Offeror with the next most advantageous WP. 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).

11.3 Offeror Exchanges

Once the Government determines that a submittal or cost proposal represents the most advantageous solution based on all evaluation criteria identified in Section 11.1, the Government reserves the right to engage with only that Offeror to address remaining issues, either orally or in writing if necessary, and finalize an agreement with that Offeror. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror with the next best solution based on the original evaluation and to address any remaining issues with that Offeror. Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best solution, no further engagements with the previous Offeror may be entertained until after the agreement has been awarded or the Government has determined the next solution is not appropriate for award.

The process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a prototype agreement is awarded. If additional funding subsequently becomes available, and funding of additional awards becomes possible, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror(s) with the next best cost proposal solution(s) based on the original cost proposal evaluation and to address any remaining issues with such Offeror(s). Alternatively, the Government reserves the right to request multiple proposals and collaborate with multiple Offerors regarding PWS and cost if, in the Government’s sole discretion, multiple initial WPs are sufficiently close on technical value. The Government would generally inform such Offerors of their relative competitive placement in that occurrence. If any such Offeror is not interested in further pursuing the award, they could decline to move forward with the understanding they would not be in position for award at that time (though their solution may be reserved for future opportunities).

12.0 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 have a Unique Entity ID number and must register in the System for Award Management (SAM). 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 agreements by the Federal Government, and must not be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order or law from receiving awards.

13.0 Other Information

13.1 Follow-On Production Work

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. 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 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.

13.2 Security & Anti-Terrorism Operations Security (AT-OPSEC)

1. Certain aspects of work performed under this prototype project will be done at the SECRET level.

2. CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) generated and/or provided under this prototype project shall be safeguarded and marked as specified in DoDM 5200.01, Vols 1-4, DoDI 5200.48, and 32 CFR Part 117

3. AT Level I Training. All contractor employees, including subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities, and controlled-access areas shall complete AT Level I awareness training within 30 calendar days after the contract start date or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable.

The contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected contractor employee and subcontractor employee, to the AOR or to the contracting officer, if a AOR is not assigned, within 30 calendar days after completion of training by all employees and subcontractor personnel. AT Level I awareness training is available at the following website: http://jko.jten.mil

4. Access and General Protection Policy and Procedures. Contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees shall provide all information required for background checks to meet installation access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. Contractor workforce must comply with all personal identity verification requirements (FAR clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel) as directed by DoD, HQDA and/or local policy.