RGPWS DRAFT RPP 20200128.docx

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROTOTYPE PROPOSAL

HYPERSONIC DEFENSE

REGIONAL GLIDE PHASE WEAPON SYSTEM

Solicitation Number: HQ0854-20-DV-OTA-01 Issued by:

Missile Defense Agency 5225 Martin Road Redstone Arsenal Huntsville, Alabama

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (Administrative or Operational Use) (January 20, 2012). Other requests shall be referred to MDA/ DV.

WARNING – This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C. Sec 2571 et. seq.) or Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title 50, U.S.C., app. 2401 et. seq. Violation of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25.

This page intentionally left blank.

Regional Glide Phase Weapon System Request for Prototype Proposal Solicitation Number: HQ0854-20-DV-OTA-01 iv

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary

The mission of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) it to develop and deploy a layered Missile Defense System (MDS) to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends form missile attacks in all phases of flight. The mission of the Hypersonic Defense Program is to Integrate and synchronize DoD and MDA activities for Hypersonic Defense to accelerate the required defenses needed against advanced threats.

The purpose of this Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) is to carry out a prototype project that is directly relevant to enhancing mission effectiveness of systems, components, or materials to be developed for or to improve platforms, systems or components in use by the armed forces for the Hypersonic Defense mission. Specifically, this Prototype Project addresses the design, development, and flight demonstration of the technical utility of a prototype hypersonic defense Regional Glide Phase Weapons System (RGPWS) interceptor. MDA intends to execute the RGPWS prototype effort by entering into one or more Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Agreements, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b.

The scope of the resulting Other Transaction (OT) Agreement(s) will include the design, development, and demonstration of a regional glide phase interceptor that includes an initial experimental prototype design for: 1) Flight Experimental Vehicle (FEV); and, 2) High Fidelity Modeling & Simulation (M&S).

Operating within the MDS, MDA will provide RGPWS hypersonic threat detection and tracking information. The FEV will reduce risk in key areas of current known uncertainty for the RGPWS and will provide a pathway to a subsequent tactical interceptor and fire control capability. The high fidelity M&S shall include renderings of conceptual tactical support systems to include fire control, and high fidelity missile descriptions. MDA will provide inputs or models depicting RGPWS sensor and battle management functions.

RGPWS experiments will culminate in a Flight Experiment to learn and evaluate solutions.

2.0 RGPWS Overview

Innovation and rapid technology advances are occurring throughout hypersonic weapon industry, especially in companies with agile development and deployment processes. Partnerships with commercial industry and others will be used to leverage these approaches. Collaboration and prototype development under this Prototype OT Agreement will reduce risk through early determination of technology with continuous design improvements and technology refresh rates to maximize the Probability of Kill (Pk) from new technology. MDA will pursue the following objectives through the execution of these OT Agreements:

The Government will select one or more offerors with the most advantageous solutions for agreement negotiation using a four-step approach: Step I: White Paper Submission; Step II: Oral Presentation; Step III: Negotiations; Step IV: Agreement Award. In cases where the Government and the selected offeror cannot come to agreement on the agreement terms and conditions, the Government may choose to negotiate with the next most advantageous offeror that was not initially selected for negotiation. Negotiations may result in the award of none, one or multiple awards.

Companies may submit more than one proposal. This agreement opportunity is fully opened to offerors capable of producing and meeting the requirements outlined in the RPP and System Requirements Document (SRD).

A follow-on production contract under the Federal Acquisition Regulation or a transaction may be awarded to the participants of this RGPWS transaction without competitive procedures if the participants in the RGPWS transaction successfully complete the RGPWS prototype project. Successful completion of the prototype project is defined as performing the flight experiment and the delivery of high fidelity modeling and simulation technical data, computer software and computer software documentation.

The RGPWS acquisition team intends to utilize non-Government organizations and/or companies as advisors to Government evaluators for this effort. Organizations / companies include Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), National Laboratories, and select Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors. Advisor’s organizations/companies are prohibited from participating as a RGPWS Team member in any manner.

3.5 Submission Due Dates

White Papers submitted in response to this RPP must be received by March 19, 2020 @ 4:00PM Huntsville, AL time. If requested, written appendices submitted in response to this RPP must be received by April 15, 2020 @ 4:00PM Huntsville, AL time.

4.0 Statement of Requirements

This Request for Prototype proposals includes a SRD, Statement of Objectives (SOO), which will be further refined by offerors into a CSOW, and supplemental technical plans, to be used as reference. All technical documents are available in the classified RGPWS Technical Library (see Attachment 2).

4.1 Statement of Objectives

The RGPWS Scope of Work will consist of a technology development and demonstration prototype experiment, involving the design and development of prototype interceptors that, if supported by necessary fire control and sensors, would be capable of engaging regional-class hypersonic threats during their glide phase of flight. MDA’s intent with regard to RGPWS is to reduce technology and integration risks with two (2) Progress Reviews and one (1) Gate Review for each Period.

The objective of the RGPWS effort is to mitigate the design risks for a future fielded regional glide phase interceptor by demonstrating the interceptor in flight test experiment(s) prior to final product development. The detailed objectives provided below are to be used in the development of a CSOW and are segregated into programmatic, acquisition, and technical objectives for the RGPWS effort.

Background: The purpose of this effort is to reduce interceptor key technology and integration risks, anchor modeling and simulation in areas of large uncertainty, and to increase the interceptor technology readiness levels (TRL) to level 5. The effort is scoped for one Flight Experiment in a non-intercept demonstration of key performance attributes of the interceptor. While further analysis and flight demonstrations culminating in an intercept Flight Experiment test is necessary to mitigate all critical risks, an intercept Flight Experiment is currently beyond the scope of this effort. The definition of a "prototype project" in the context of an OT is as follows: a prototype project addresses a proof of concept, model, reverse engineering to address obsolescence, pilot, novel application of commercial technologies for defense purposes, agile development activity, creation, design, development, demonstration of technical or operational utility, or combinations of the foregoing. A process, including a business process, may be the subject of a prototype project.

a) Engage small businesses, to increase missile defense engagement capability and capacity to outpace emerging threats, to serve as alternative sources, to mitigate risks of single point failures in the supply chain, and to increase the quality of supplies or services for the program specified in the Agreement.

b) Leverage Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STIR) program funded technologies with high potential for transition into the program specified in the Agreement, or increase speed of delivery of new capability to address evolving missile threats. Report the number and dollar amount of Phase III SBIR or STTR contracts.

Distribution Statement E: Distribution authorized to DoD Components only due to Critical Technology (date of determination). Other requests shall be referred to (MDA/SB -VB III SB Office). The annual report shall be submitted within 90 days of the beginning of each Period.

4.1.2 Acquisition Objectives

Leverage innovative non-traditional defense contractors or nonprofit research institutions, commercial capabilities, and best practices to enable a rapid and mission-focused acquisition.

4.1.3 Technical Objectives

4.1.3.1 M&S Framework anchored with empirical test data (Period 1): The contractor shall conduct an initial M&S framework review within 60 days of agreement to establish collaboration between government and contractor and enable an early understanding of the contractor’s Hypersonic M&S capabilities. The M&S is necessary for all design/mission details to produce credible, high confidence performance estimates for hypersonic weapon design and development. Key attributes of the RGPWS M&S capability shall be demonstrated as follows:

The following deliverables are required as specified:

Table 1: Agreement Deliverables

4.3 Government Support Required

Identify the type of support, if any, the Offeror requests of the Government, such as: facilities, equipment, data, and information or materials.

4.4 Program Plan

The RGPWS Agreement will contain four (4) Agreement Line Item Numbers (ALINs) encompassing completion and delivery of the RGPWS requirement. Offerors may propose additional ALINs if necessary. Milestone payments should be proposed by the contractor.

Period 2 (Optional)

Period 3 (Optional)

HWIL / SIL Testing: Design/development activities to support a successful HWIL and Software-in-the-loop test. Includes execution of the HWIL and necessary data for Government to verify Design parameters and successful completion of entry and exit criteria.

Period 4 (Optional)

Table 2: Agreement Line Item Number (ALIN) Descriptions

Figure 1: RGPWS Agreement Structure Overview

4.4.3 Program Execution

MDA intends to award multiple Agreements for the RGPWS Base Period (ALIN 1). The Base Period is not-to-exceed 18-months. The length of time for the remaining three option Periods Initial Design, Final Design, and Build and Test (see Figure 1) will be negotiated prior to agreement award and revised as needed. Options may be exercised on one or more agreements. MDA will conduct a Gate Review at the end of Periods 1-3. MDA will then consider the contractor’s performance over the entire period, the results of the Gate Review and Agency needs and associated funding. MDA will then decide whether the contractor should continue performance (either within the current period or progress to the next period), discontinue performance (subsequent option will not be exercised) or whether the cost of continued performance should be paid partially or in total out of funds provided by parties other than the Federal Government (the level of funding or Government support to be provided will be negotiated).

4.4.3.1 Gate Reviews

The contractor shall identify the following in the CSOW and the IMS for all planned Gate Reviews: objective of the gate, entry criteria, exist criteria, the proposed IMS dates for the review and any contractor-led events leading up to a Gate Review decision. Gate Review Criterion are provided in Table 3: Review Criteria. The Contractor(s) shall clearly show traceability to the technical and program requirements in the RPP, SRD and CSOW. Each Gate Review is an independent standalone event; the Contractor may formally request an opportunity to update their objectives, entry criteria and exist criteria to MDA. This request may trigger a tailored IBR event.

Table 3- Review Criteria

4.4.3.2 Agreement Reviews

ARs will provide MDA with important information and data leading to a Gate Review. AR may be a deliverable and/or a contractor-led knowledge point review. The contractor shall identify the following for contractor-led agreement reviews: objective of the review, entry criteria, and exist criteria. The entry and exit criteria shall have traceability to a MDA requirement and/or a CSOW requirement. The contractor may add additional ARs but shall not delete any ARs identified in Table 1 and Table 2.

4.5 RGPWS Points of Contact

Primary Agreements Officer Technical Representative (AOTR):

John Doe Title: Program Manager Phone number: 256-XXX-XXXX E-mail address: johndoe@mda.mil

Alternate AOTR:

Jill Doe Title: Alternate AOTR Phone number: 256-XXX-XXXX E-mail address: jilldoe@mda.mil

Primary Agreements Officer Representative (AOR):

TBD

Title: Agreements Officer Representative Phone number:256-XXX-XXXX E-mail address:TBD@mda.mil

5.0 Instruction to Offerors

Offerors may submit proposals for evaluation according to the instructions set forth herein. The Government WILL accept alternate proposals if they represent an alternate technical approach.

5.1 Government Intent

The Government will evaluate submissions with the intent of entering into negotiations, for the purposes of funding and awarding your project as an OT Agreement. However, the Government is under no obligation to make an award, and in the event that the Government determines it will not award an Agreement, costs incurred in the development and negotiation of its proposal are not recoverable from the Government.

5.2 White Paper- Step I

MDA strongly encourages all offerors to submit a classified White Paper (Secret) to the following email address (SIPR email address). All White Papers shall be properly marked IAW RGPWS Terms and Conditions (Attachment 1), Article 25.

White papers must be received no later than March 13, 2020, 4PM CST.

5.2.1 White Paper Cover Sheet

White Papers shall include a cover sheet in the contractor’s format that should include the following information, at a minimum:

5.2.2 Identification of subcontractors/teammates:

For each subcontractor/teammate, a summary shall be provided that identifies the following:

The purpose of the white paper is to facilitate the Government’s identification of the most advantageous RGPWS solutions. The Government will base its selection on the information in the submitted white paper, any information previously submitted to the Government and the Government’s knowledge and expertise as it relates to the hit to kill technology and this specific mission. All offerors will be treated fairly, but that does not mean that interchanges will be required with all offerors or all interchanges will be of the same nature or depth. The Government may determine that one, or more than one offeror have the most favorable RGPWS prototype solutions.

White Papers will be evaluated using the following criteria:

Offerors are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RPP. All White Papers shall use the contractor format, with the following stipulations: Aerial Font 11, single-spaced, using 8.5 by 11 inch paper. Smaller type may be used in figures, tables and/or graphics however, the table will not be considered if the information is not legible. Margins on all sides should be at least 1 inch. White Papers shall include a cover sheet in the contractor format that should include the following information at a minimum: Project Title, primary point of contact that includes a name, address, phone number, date of submission, the solicitation number, and an email contact. White Papers shall not exceed 35 pages. MDA strongly encourages all vendors to submit a classified White Paper (Secret) to the following email address (SIPR email address). We recognize that non-traditional contractors may elect to participate in this opportunity, therefore, MDA will accept unclassified White Papers at the following email address (put a NIPR address here). All White Papers shall be properly marked IAW RGPWS Terms & Conditions (Attachment 1), Article 25.

5.3.1.1 Proposal Appendices

Full proposal appendices submitted in response to this RPP must be received by: April 27, 2020 before 5:00 pm local Huntsville, AL time. Offerors are encouraged to submit the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Disclosure Forms and Mitigation Plans (See 5.3.3.1) as soon as possible. Documents may be submitted directly to the MDA Agreements Officer at RGPWS@MDA.MIL, or by delivering hard copies to the following address:

Missile Defense Agency ATTN: Joseph Chapman 5225 Martin Road Office VB4 5-5009 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

5.3.3.2 Oral Presentation

The Government will schedule oral presentations beginning on or about 04 May 2020 and ending on or about 18 May 2020.

5.3.2 Full Prototype Proposal Delivery

In Step II, Offerors will conduct an oral presentation, which represents the full prototype proposal, along with delivering electronic copies of the required appendices- identified in Section 5.3.3 below.

The Offeror shall determine the Oral Presentation agenda order. MDA will notify the Offeror of their scheduled Oral Presentation. At the beginning of the oral presentations, the Offeror shall present the agenda to the evaluation team. Audio and visual equipment shall not be provided. Offeror should plan for a minimum of fifteen team members. All presentation information and material shall remain with the evaluation board. The offeror is responsible for properly managing their presentation time.

The presenting team is limited to five people. One of five presenters must represent a non-traditional team member which is substantially contributing to the overall effort (unless offeror is proposing 1/3 cost share). The oral presentations shall not exceed six (6) hours; up to two (2) hours will be allotted for Government question/discussion. Ten (10) minutes of each hour will be allotted for breaks, and neither presenters nor the evaluators are to engage in off line conversations during this time. The non-traditional team member(s) (if applicable), with support from the prime offeror, shall present their role to the evaluation team.

Oral presentations are designed to be an interactive exchange between the government and the offeror. The offeror should appropriately plan for questions, answers, and interactive discussions. Offeror shall also be prepared to discuss submitted documents. The presentation should describe the background and objectives of the proposed work, the approach, deliverables, and the resources needed to execute it. Offeror solutions shall explain, in detail, how their concept/design meets the SOO and SRD requirements. The following topics will be addressed during the presentation:

Documents provided must be delivered in Arial Font 11, single-spaced, using 8.5 by 11 inch paper. Smaller type may be used in figures, tables and/or graphics, however, the table will not be considered if the information is not legible. Margins on all sides should be at least 1 inch. All documents shall be properly marked IAW RGPWS Terms & Conditions (Attachment 1), Article 25. The Offeror is required to submit the following appendices by the proposal due-date specified in Section 5.3.1.:

MDA strongly encourages offerors to submit a classified CSOW (Secret) to the following email address (SIPR email address). If a higher classification is required, offerors must contact the Government as soon as possible to ensure the proposal documents are received prior to the submission deadline. CSOWs shall not exceed 200 pages, using a contractor-derived format with the following stipulations: Arial Font 11, single-spaced, using 8.5 by 11 inch paper. (Smaller type may be used in figures, tables and/or graphics, however, the table will not be considered if the information is not legible.) Margins on all sides should be at least 1 inch. All CSOWs shall be properly marked IAW RGPWS Terms and Conditions (Attachment 1), Article 25.

5.3.3.10 Cost and Pricing Submission

Sufficient cost information to substantiate the proposed cost as realistic and reasonable for the proposed effort must be provided to ensure that a complete and fair evaluation of the cost or price can be conducted. Offerors should include any other data or supporting information that may be necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price. This can include commercial price catalog for hardware or software, labor rates, other direct costs (ex. supplies and material cost quotes), proposed travel, etc. as necessary to determine the associated costs.

5.3.4 Full Prototype Proposal Evaluation

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all qualified proposals. The Government will select the most favorable offers for negotiations. The Selection Authority (SA) may:

· Select the proposal(s) for award;

· Place the proposal in the Holding File if funding currently is unavailable; or

· Reject the proposal (it will not be placed in the Holding File) Based on the outcome of negotiations, the Government may enter an agreement or enter negotiations with the next most favorable offeror.

5.3.4.1 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate proposals and the SA will select the most advantageous submission, based upon the RPP requirements and Evaluation Criteria, to include the following factors: (in relative order of importance): Technical Approach; Industrial Capability and Experience; Schedule; and Price.

5.3.4.1.1 Technical Approach

Technical Approach is the most important factor. Technical merit of the proposed solution will be assessed with respect to the ability to meet the technical objectives/requirements outlined in the SRD. This may include consideration of the soundness of the technical approach as well as any risk it presents, as demonstrated by the extent to which the proposal includes a complete and innovative approach on how the solution will be executed. This will include consideration of the contractor’s proposed CSOW and its ability to accomplish the SOO. The Offeror’s SBIR/STTR, or other Government-funded research or technology transfer efforts will be evaluated for relevancy and applicability to RGPWS. Offerors will not be evaluated negatively for not leveraging SBIR/STTR, or other Government-funded research or technology transfer efforts.

5.3.4.1.2 Industrial Capability and Experience

Industrial Capability and Experience is the second most important factor and will be assessed on the ability to meet the technical and schedule objectives/requirements outlined in the RPP, and the ability to accommodate the proposed technical approach and schedule, including adequately addressing/mitigating associated risks. Prior experience will be assessed on pertinence of examples provided in the proposal when compared to the objectives/requirements outlined in the RPP. The Government may consider any other sources of prior experience or information that may be available. Facilities will be assessed and will consider the adequacy of the proposed facilities and equipment used to carry out the prototype project.

5.3.4.1.3 Schedule

Schedule is the third most important factor. Schedule will be assessed on the completeness and the ability to execute the proposed schedule, including whether the proposed schedule meets the technical…