BAA_HSCG32-14-R-R00021__Mitigation_of_Oil_in_Water_Column.docx

BAA HSCG32-14-R-R00021

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)

BAA NUMBER: HSCG32-14-R-R00021

Mitigation of Oil in the Water Column

United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center 1 Chelsea Street New London, CT 06320

INTRODUCTION

This announcement constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2). No Request for Proposal (RFP), solicitation, or other announcement will be made. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Research and Development Center (RDC) will not issue paper copies of this announcement.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Agency Name

United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center 1 Chelsea Street New London, CT 06320

2. Research Opportunity Title

Mitigation of Oil in the Water Column

3. Program Name

Oil Spill Response

4. Research Opportunity Number

HSCG32-14-R-R00021

5. Response Date

White Papers due 13 November 2014

Proposals due 15 January 2015

6. Research Opportunity Description

6.1 Background

A challenge that the Coast Guard faced during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response was the inability to determine the location of subsurface oil plumes in near-real time, which inhibited timely decisions to protect the environment, numerous water-intakes and commercial facilities. Other issues that negatively impacted the response included poor visibility in deeper waters, difficulty in tracking oil movements in fast-moving currents and an inability to discover very low levels of oil or dispersed oil at all depths. From 2011 to 2013, the Coast Guard Research and Development Center (RDC) worked to close these gaps by advancing the technology for detecting subsurface oil in near-shore and river environments.

Two prototype detection systems were developed and tested at the National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test Facility (OHMSETT) in Leonardo, NJ for their feasibility and performance. They are based on two different technologies: sonar and optical technology. The Wide Band Multibeam Sonar (WBMS) created by Norbit is lightweight equipment that can be operated between 200 to 450 kHz and has the ability to provide a 3D topology of the oil plume. It also has integrated processing capabilities and can be mounted on many platforms that move in or on the water. WET Labs provided an optical tool using the Wide-angle-scattering Inversion method with a fluorometer serving as a backup. It measures refracted and reflected light off of suspended particles to determine the droplet size distribution and viscosity of oil based on their distinct scattering angles. The inversion methods are used to identify and quantify suspended oil emulsions. Both systems are portable and can be deployed easily by one or two persons.

With the detection phase of RDC’s Detection and Mitigation of Oil in the Water Column project completed, the focus of the RDC now shifts to the mitigation phase. This portion of the project will build on the efforts and lessons learned during RDC’s work in the detection phase as well as those learned during the USCG’s Deepwater Response. Once submerged oil in the near-shore or river environments has been encountered, the next step is to make the decision of whether an active approach is necessary to remove the oil or mitigate the subsurface plume’s impacts on the environment, water-intakes and commercial facilities. Currently there is no well-established technology, technique or strategy to prevent the detected submerged oil from having further adverse impacts on the environment or manmade structures.

6.2 Scope

This BAA consists of Phase I (Concept Development) with an option for Phase II (Prototype Development and Demonstration). Phase I includes concept development of a technology, technique or strategy that either removes submerged oil or mitigates a subsurface plume’s impacts on the environment, water-intakes and commercial facilities. The definition of submerged oil is narrowly defined as neutrally buoyant oil (with or without sediment particles attached) suspended in the water column. For those approaches where the offeror proposes to develop a prototype, Phase II is an option, that the Government may or may not exercise, for the prototype development and demonstration.

6.3 Gap Statement

The USCG lacks a reliable technology, technique or strategy that can remove submerged oil or mitigate the adverse impact of any type of oil submerged in the water column of fast moving waters located in riverine or near shore environments in depths up to two hundred (200) feet. With a goal of advancing the state of technology, the USCG seeks solutions that can remove submerged oil or mitigate its impact on the surrounding environment and manmade structures using in-situ approaches.

6.4 Phase I - Concept Development

Conceptual technology, technique or strategy shall be developed to address the Gap Statement. In the context of closing the gap, concepts shall be developed with the goal of optimizing as many of the following qualities as possible (the qualities are ranked in order of importance):

1) Extent of oil mitigation or removal rates and quantities

2) Types of oil mitigated (e.g. droplets, tarballs, dissolved oil)

3) Minimization of environmental impacts with a focus on wildlife and plant life

4) Effective limits in terms of depth of oil and deployment

5) Effective limits in terms of environmental conditions such as current, wave height, winds, day/night, inclement weather, etc

6) Ease of use to include deployability and recovery of equipment

7) Transportability

8) Operability in fresh/seawater

9) Ability to observe and monitor subsurface oil collection

10) Reusability

11) Safety to personnel deploying and recovering

Offerors whose proposals are selected shall be required to submit deliverables related to their designs, concept solutions, and/or existing prototypes. Those offerors without the ability to produce a prototype or execute their concept are invited to propose only for the concept development phase (Phase I).

6.5 Phase II - Prototype Development and Demonstration

Those offerors who are awarded an option to develop and demonstrate a prototype (if any) under Phase II shall deliver a demonstrable prototype of their developed concept for a functional demonstration at a Government facility or at an independent facility contracted by the Government. The National Oil Spill Response Research and Renewable Energy Test Facility (OHMSETT) in Leonardo, NJ is the anticipated initial test facility; (see information at www.ohmsett.com). It is anticipated the demonstration shall occur in the large tow tank or equivalent depending on the offeror’s concept and prototype. Ohmsett's above ground concrete test tank measures 203 meters long by 20 meters wide by 3.4 meters deep. The tank is filled with 2.6 million gallons of saltwater. The Ohmsett test tank allows testing of full-scale equipment. The tank's wave generator creates realistic sea environments and state-of-the-art data collection and video systems record test results.

Each offeror shall be responsible for shipment of their equipment to the test facility prior to the test date and operation and demonstration of the prototype’s capabilities according to the Government’s test plan. A maximum of five (5) days is anticipated to fully demonstrate the prototype at the test facility and resolve any shipping/start-up issues that may occur. This five day period does not include shipping the equipment to and from the test facility. Observation and assessment of the demonstration shall focus on the qualities listed in Section 6.4. The demonstration results shall be made available by the Government in a report to the public.

7. Point(s) of Contact

All questions shall be addressed to the Contract Specialist, Dinah Mulligan, at Dinah.L.Mulligan@uscg.mil or (860) 271-2885. The Contracting Officer is Diane Christensen, who can be reached at Diane.C.Christensen@uscg.mil or (860) 271-2890. Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government.

8. Additional Information

This announcement is restricted to Concept Development (Phase I), followed by an option for Prototype Development and Demonstration (Phase II). The concept developments proposed under Phase I shall not change under Phase II which is prototype development and demonstration of Phase I technology, technique or strategy.

The offeror is expected to provide all resources including labor, equipment, shipping and real property necessary for the performance of the proposed effort. The Government will provide the test facility for Phase II.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this announcement is 541620 with a small business size standard of $15.0 million dollars.

Successful Offerors will be required to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to award of any contract. SAM has combined federal procurement systems including Central Contractor Registration, Federal Agency Registration, Online Representations and Certification, and the Excluded Parties List System. Information on SAM registration is available at https://www.sam.gov or by calling 1-888-606-8220.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

The Government reserves the right to select for award and fund all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement, and to make awards on initial offers without negotiations with offerors. The Government also reserves the right to conduct negotiations if it is later determined to be necessary. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that the Government desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that offeror. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases. The RDC does not provide funding nor reimburse offerors for proposal development costs. Technical and cost proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. The RDC treats all proposals as sensitive competitive information and discloses their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

Awards under this BAA will be made to offerors on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed in this announcement. The Government reserves the right to remove offerors from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and cost/price within a reasonable time or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. In all cases, the Government Contracting Officer shall have sole discretion to select award type and to negotiate all terms and conditions with potential awardees.

Since the number of possible awards under this BAA are unknown, the anticipated period of performance is estimated to be:

Phase I - Base Period (8 months from date of award) Phase II - Option 1 (10 months from date of exercise of option)

The test facility will only be scheduled once. All awardees under this BAA will demonstrate their prototypes at the same time at the test facility. The estimated dates for the test are subject to change.

The RDC has a budget of between $750,000 and $850,000 for the total program (Phase I and II). The RDC budget for Phase I awards is between $250,000 and $350,000. The RDC budget for Phase II option awards is between $400,000 and $500,000.

The decision to award the Phase II Option will be made separately and after award of the initial base contract. The award of the Phase II Option will be based on technical approach and funds availability.

III. WHITE PAPERS

White Paper Preparation

Prior to proposal submittal, offerors have the opportunity to submit a White Paper, which is considered an abbreviated version of a proposal. A White Paper submission to the Government prior to proposal submission is considered optional for offerors, and it is not considered a requirement for proposal submission or possible award. If an offeror submits a White Paper, the Government will review the offeror’s White Paper and return feedback on the viability of the proposed concept for the USCG gap and the likelihood that a proposal would be of interest to the USCG. Offerors can use the feedback to decide whether to proceed with the submission of a full proposal or withdraw their interest in this announcement. Regardless of the Government feedback on the White Paper, offerors may submit a full proposal. The Government will not reimburse offerors for any cost associated with the development and submission of a White Paper.

White Paper Format

White Papers must have: one inch margins; single spacing; Times New Roman 12 Point font; and 8 ½ x 11 inch page size. The White Paper must be in PDF format.

Please see the White Paper Description Template (Attachment 1) for white paper content and limitation requirements.

White Papers must be submitted electronically to the Contract Specialist, Dinah Mulligan, at Dinah.l.mulligan@uscg.mil via email and must be received by 2:00 p.m. E.S.T. on 13 November 2014.

IV. PROPOSALS

The Technical Proposal and Cost/Price Proposal must be submitted electronically to the Contract Specialist, Dinah Mulligan, at dinah.l.mulligan@uscg.mil via email (in MS Word or Excel format) and must be received prior to 2:00 p.m. E.S.T. on 15 January 2015. The Technical Proposal shall be separate from the Cost/Price Proposal.

The original and four (4) hard copies of the Technical Proposal, as well as the original and one (1) hard copy of the Cost/Price Proposal must also be received by 2:00 p.m. E.S.T. on 15 January 2015.

The Prime Contractor is responsible for ensuring that all electronic and hard copies of subcontractor proposals are received by 2:00 p.m. E.S.T. on 15 January 2015. Proposals shall be marked “Source Selection Sensitive”. Hard copies shall be addressed to the following address:

United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center Attn: Dinah Mulligan 1 Chelsea Street New London, CT 06320

Proposal submissions will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 15.207. Offerors shall appropriately mark each page of their submission that contains proprietary information. The proposal submission shall include a Statement of Work (SOW) with Deliverables List (Attachment 2) that contains only unclassified information and does not include classified and proprietary restrictions.

Proposal Format –Volume 1 (Technical Proposal) and Volume 2 (Cost/Price Proposal)

Titles given to the proposals shall be descriptive of the work they cover and not merely a copy of the title of this BAA.

· Paper Size - 8.5 x 11 inch paper

· Margins - 1 inch

· Spacing - single or double-spaced

· Font -Times New Roman, 12 point

· Other allowable - Charts/graphs may exceed the 8.5 x 11 inch paper size.

· Number of Pages - Volume 1, Part 1, is limited to no more than ten (10) pages. Evaluators will not evaluate more than ten pages. Proposals exceeding the page restriction may be excluded from review.

· Volume 1, Part 2, Statement of Work and Assertion of Data Rights, has no page limit.

· Volume 1, Part 3, Resumes, Project Summary, and Performance Evaluation Report, has no page limit.

· Volume 2 has no page limit.

Volume I: Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal shall consist of a cover page and three parts. Part 1 shall provide an executive summary of the Technical Proposal, a description of Technical and Scientific Basis and Feasibility. Part 2 shall consist of the proposed Statement of Work with its task/subtask breakdown, the Deliverable Listing, and an explanation of data rights issues. Part 3 shall include resumes, project summary and performance evaluation report.

The Cover Page shall include the words: “Volume I: Technical Proposal” and the following:

· BAA Number HSCG32-14-R-R00021

· Title of Proposal

· Principal Investigator (PI) contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address)

· Contracting/Business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address)

· Duration of effort

· Any proprietary data disclosure statement, if applicable.

Part 1 of Volume 1 shall include the following sections and be limited to (10) ten pages:

1. Technical and Scientific Basis: This section shall demonstrate that the proposed technology, technique or strategy addresses the USCG’s Gap Statement in Section 6.3 of this BAA. This section shall:

a. Describe the offeror’s understanding of the Gap Statement in Section 6.3. List any assumptions (if applicable).

b. Describe the proposed technology, technique or strategy and how it closes the stated gap.

c. List each quality attribute in Section 6.4 and describe the attributes of your proposed technology, technique or strategy, as they relate to these qualities.

2. Feasibility: This section shall demonstrate the offeror’s development of the proposed technology, technique or strategy and the feasibility of the described performance. This section shall:

a. Describe the operational principles, scientific basis, and any performance results of the offeror’s technology, technique or strategy.

b. Describe a general approach the USCG could use to independently test or demonstrate the offeror’s delivered technology, technique or strategy.

c. If the offeror is proposing a technological solution (i.e. prototype device), describe the technology’s current and final Technology Readiness Level (TRL)[footnoteRef:1] and the development timetable and activities to bring it to its final TRL at the end of the period of performance. If the offeror is not proposing a technological solution, describe the current maturity of the technique or strategy and the development timetable and activities to bring it to a demonstrable state at the end of the period of performance. [1: TRL are defined in the White Paper Description Template (Attachment 1)]

Part 2 of Volume 1 shall include the following sections (no page limit):

Statement of Work (SOW) with Corresponding Deliverables List: A sample SOW (Attachment 2) is provided to show the formatting and required elements of the SOW. Offerors are required to provide a SOW that matches its Technical Proposal, and the SOW must be detailed enough to support the proposed contract type. The SOW shall clearly detail the scope and objective of Phase I and Phase II efforts, including the technical approach and the schedule of technical tasks, subtasks, events, and milestones.

The Statement of Work must include all of the following in Phase I – Concept Development:

1. Kickoff Meeting: To be held within fourteen (14) days after award

2. Development Tasks: These tasks will be documented in the draft and final reports

3. Progress Meeting: Via telephone or video-conference, a progress meeting shall take place approximately half-way through the design process.

4. Deliverable: Meeting Minutes from Kickoff and Midterm Progress Meetings

5. Deliverable: Concept Development Draft and Final Reports

6. Monthly Progress Report and Archive: The offeror shall prepare a Monthly Progress/Expenditure Report, and at the end of the period of performance, shall provide a CD/DVD-ROM Archive containing all submitted deliverables.

The Statement of Work must include all of the following in Phase II – Prototype Development and Demonstration (if Phase II Option proposed by offeror):

1. Kickoff Meeting: To be held within fourteen (14) days after exercise of Option for Phase II. In a teleconference meeting with RDC personnel, the offeror shall provide details on how the capability Gap Statement (Section 6.3 above) will be addressed by the technology, technique or strategy being proposed. Key milestones and any issues/concerns shall be discussed.

2. Progress and Midterm Progress Meeting: Teleconference meetings shall be held at regular intervals with RDC personnel to discuss progress and issues to date. No later than halfway through the Phase II effort (5 months), a midterm progress meeting with RDC personnel shall be held at the offeror’s worksite. The offeror shall provide details on how the prototype development has progressed. The offeror shall also again address how the capabilities will be optimized by the technology, technique or strategy being proposed.

3. Deliverable: Meeting Minutes and Project Plan from Kickoff and Midterm Progress Meetings.

4. Deliverable: Prototype Demonstration Recommendations. The offeror must recommend how best to test the technologies proposed to demonstrate that the prototype optimizes the capabilities identified in Section 6.4. The deliverable will be a summary of the ideal test scenario for the offeror, the test scenario from the Preliminary Government Test Plan as agreed to by the Ohmsett Test Facility, RDC, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), as reviewed by the offeror, and any necessary accommodations for the equipment to demonstrate its abilities in accordance with the Preliminary Government Test Plan. (The Government will consider the offeror’s recommendations when the Government finalizes the Government Test Plan.)

5. Prototype Demonstration: The offeror shall develop and deliver the prototype to the testing facility before the test date. Demonstration of the prototype shall be conducted by the offeror and accomplished during five days at Ohmsett.

6. Deliverable: Prototype Development and Demonstration Report. The offeror shall prepare a report of the prototype test, documenting the results and identifying tasks needed to be accomplished for successful full-scale deployment. The report shall be included within the SOW as a deliverable and shall be due thirty (30) days after test completion.

7. Special Requirements: The SOW shall identify any specialized requirements needed to successfully accomplish prototype demonstration.

8. Monthly Progress Report and Archive: The offeror shall prepare Monthly Progress/Expenditure Report and at the end of the period of performance, shall provide a CD/DVD-ROM Archive containing all submitted deliverables

It is the intent of the Government to use the offeror’s SOW, as written, provided that the offeror’s SOW accurately describes the work to be performed and meets all of the criteria specified above. If in the Government’s opinion, the offeror’s SOW does not include all of the specified criteria; the Government will prepare a SOW using information available in the offeror’s proposal or have the offeror rewrite the SOW.

The SOW document shall not contain any proprietary information. The offeror shall format the SOW and Deliverables list using the sample provided as a guide. All Deliverables shall be cross-referenced in the SOW.

Assertion of Data Rights: The offeror shall include a summary of any proprietary rights to pre-existing data related to techniques, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. Any rights assertions made in other parts of the proposal that would impact the rights in this section shall be cross-referenced. If there are proprietary rights, the offeror shall explain how these rights will impact the USCG’s ability to demonstrate the delivered prototype for the removal or mitigation of submerged oil and publish the science and results. Additionally, offerors shall explain how the program goals of the USCG’s response to removing or mitigating the impacts of submerged oil on the surrounding environment and manmade structures are achievable in light of these proprietary and/or restrictive limitations. Offerors asserting Data Rights shall do so in accordance with the clause in FAR 52.227-15, “Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.” The Government anticipates incorporating FAR Clauses 52.227-14, Rights in Data – General (DEC 2007) Alternates II, III, IV and V. If there are no claims of proprietary rights in pre-existing data, this section shall consist of a statement to that effect.

Part 3 of Volume 1 shall include the following sections (no page limit):

a. Submit resumes for proposed lead personnel that the offeror determines to be critical to the success of the project, clearly demonstrating the education, training, and experience of the proposed individuals relevant to the proposed effort. At least one resume must be submitted. The resumes will not count against the ten (10) page limit. Resumes should be no longer than two pages each.

b. Past Performance: The proposal submission shall include a brief project summary of the most relevant prior effort (at least one but not more than three) completed within the past three years including a contract/order number, point-of-contact information (customer or Government), funding amounts, clear descriptions of the work, and roles and responsibilities for efforts relevant to recovering oil or experience using proposed technology. A Performance Evaluation Report must be provided for the submitted project summary. The Government may use other sources of past performance information other than the sources identified by the offeror.

Volume II: Cost/Price Proposal

The Cost/Price Proposal shall include a cover page and shall provide a detailed cost breakdown of all proposed costs by cost category. For proposal pricing purposes, offerors shall assume a contract start date of on or about 4 March 2015. The cost/price proposal shall be limited to the minimum number of pages necessary to satisfy the specific requirements set forth below.

Cost/price proposals shall represent the offeror’s best response to the announcement. The cost/price proposal must be complete and in compliance with the instructions in this announcement and sufficient to establish the reasonableness and cost/price realism of the proposed cost/price. Further, any modifications made to the initial proposal must likewise be thoroughly supported in writing regardless of whether such changes are made during negotiations or at the time of a proposal revision.

If you are proposing other than a cost reimbursement type contract effort, the Government will consider the use of another contract type. If the offeror has an approved accounting system, a copy of the Audit Report must be provided with the cost/price proposal. If the offeror has a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) or Agreement (FPRA), a copy of the most recent recommendation or agreement must be provided with the cost/price proposal. A cost-reimbursement type contract cannot be awarded to an offeror without an adequate accounting system.

· Cover Page shall include the words “Cost/Price Proposal” and the following:

1) BAA Number HSCG32-14-R-R00021;

2) Title of Proposal;

3) Identity of prime offeror and complete list of subcontractors (if applicable);

4) Technical point-of-contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);

5) Contracting/Business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);

6) Cage Code and DUNS Number

7) Period of Performance (duration of effort);

8) Proposed Contract Type (e.g., cost reimbursement or firm-fixed price)

9) Total proposed costs and profit or fee; and

10) Cognizant DCAA and DCMA point of contact, address, phone/fax, and electronic mail address (if available).

· Cost/Price Proposal shall provide a detailed breakdown of all costs by cost category (by offeror’s fiscal year) and proposed profit/fee:

1) Direct Labor - Provide labor category or individual’s name and unburdened direct labor rates for that individual or labor category and an explanation of how the rate was developed for that labor category;

2) Labor Hours - Provide labor hours by labor category or individual and total proposed labor hours;

3) Other Direct Costs (ODCs) - Materials - Offeror shall specifically itemize proposed material with a description of proposed items and associated number of units, unit costs and total amount. Supporting backup information such as vendor quotes or catalog prices to support these costs must be provided;

Travel - Offeror shall provide estimated cost of travel along with number of trips, number of people, number of days per trip, departure and arrival destinations, etc.; travel shall be broken out to include air fare, per diem, car rental rates, parking, local travel, etc. Travel must be proposed in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations;

Shipping - Offeror shall provide costs for shipping system or device and associated components to test location. Supporting backup information such as vendor quotes to support shipping costs must be provided;

4) Subcontracts/Consultants - For subcontracted work, identify the item/services to be subcontracted and the basis for which the subcontractor was selected. Identify the type of contractual arrangement contemplated, and provide a price analysis of the proposed subcontract in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) concerning reasonableness, realism and completeness of each subcontractor’s proposal. A separate cost/price proposal for each subcontractor shall be provided with the same level of detail as the prime offeror’s cost/price proposal. (The subcontractor’s cost/price proposal can be provided in a sealed envelope with the offeror’s cost/price proposal or submitted by the subcontractor directly to the Government by the due date for receipt of proposals.); NOTE for Consultants - Provide consultant agreement or other document which verifies the proposed loaded daily/hourly rate;

5) Indirect Costs – Provide all indirect costs, i.e., Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General and Administrative, Facilities Capital Cost of Money. (NOTE: Offerors must show the base amount (dollars) and the indirect rate which will be applied to that base). Offeror must state whether indirect rates are DCAA/DCMA-approved rates;

6) Proposed Fee/Profit – including fee/profit percentage.

V. SIGNIFICANT DATES AND TIMES

Phase I – Concept Development

Anticipated Schedule of Events for Planning Purposes

* These dates and times are estimates as of the date of this announcement.

Phase II – Prototype Development and Demonstration Anticipated Schedule of Events for Planning Purposes

* These dates and times are estimates as of the date of this announcement.

VI. ANNOUNCEMENT REVIEW INFORMATION (SCIENTIFIC/PEER REVIEW)

White Paper Evaluation: The White Paper evaluation will be a Scientific/Peer Review by a panel of subject matter experts. The evaluation will focus on: (a) the Technical and Scientific Basis, (b) Feasibility, and (c) Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost.

The following factors and subfactors shall be considered during the Scientific/Peer Review

1. Technical and Scientific Basis The offeror’s white paper demonstrates the following:

· An understanding of the Gap Statement in BAA Paragraph 6.3;

· An approach or strategy with their technology that closes the gap; and

· Technology attributes that address the qualities in BAA Paragraph 6.4.

2. Feasibility The offeror’s White Paper demonstrates the following:

· Technology that can be brought from its current technology level to a demonstrable prototype based upon the technology development plan and associated ROM cost;

· There is a reasonable way to test or demonstrate the technology

· The technology’s methods or functions and its operational principles and associated scientific basis and/or performance results are feasible to address the gap in BAA Paragraph 6.3 and meet the qualities in BAA Paragraph 6.4; and

· The technical team members have the relevant skills, experience, qualifications, and education to carry out the described approach.

3. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost The offeror’s White Paper demonstrates the following:

· The costs are appropriate for the benefit gained by the idea.

After evaluation of an offeror’s White Paper, the USCG will provide feedback to the offeror on the viability of the proposed concept for the USCG gap and the likelihood that a proposal would be of interest to the USCG.

Proposal Evaluation (Phase I): The primary basis for selecting proposals for acceptance shall be technical approach, cost/price, importance to agency programs, and funds availability.

Technical Approach– The following subfactors for Technical Approach will be evaluated by Scientific/Peer review.

1. Scientific/Peer review will consider the following subfactors under Technical and Scientific Basis:

a. Degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the Gap Statement in Section 6.3;

b. Degree to which the offeror’s demonstrated approach closes the Gap Statement;

c. Degree to which the offeror’s demonstrated approach optimizes the qualities in Section 6.4;

2. Scientific/Peer review will consider the following subfactors under Feasibility:

a. Soundness of offeror’s demonstrated approach based upon operational principles and supporting science;

b. Demonstrability of the offeror’s delivered technology, technique or strategy;

c. Attainability of the offeror’s proposed final technology, technique or strategy based upon the initial state and required development activities;

d. The relevant skills, experience, qualifications, and education of the proposed individuals the offeror considers critical to the success of the proposed effort;

e. The relevance of the offeror’s submitted past performance to the scope of the BAA and the ratings received on the Performance Evaluation Report.

Cost/Price

Compliance and Completeness - The cost/price proposal will first be reviewed to determine if it complies with the cost/price proposal preparation instructions and any other applicable directions and contains all required information.

Cost/Price Realism - The cost/price proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed costs/prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the Gap Statement, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's proposal. The cost/price of the option will be evaluated at time of award of the base contracts.

Importance to Agency Program - The extent to which the proposal addresses the USCG gap statement and advances the science and/or technology.

Funds Availability - Whether there are sufficient funds to award the contract.

The S/PR panel will then put each Technical Proposal in one of three categories:

Category 1: The proposal demonstrates high technical and scientific basis and feasibility. It is also important to agency programs. The cost/price is reasonable and realistic. Proposals in Category 1 are recommended for acceptance (subject to availability of funds) and usually are displaced only by other Category 1 proposals.

Category 2: The proposal demonstrates technical and scientific basis and feasibility. It is also important to agency programs. The cost/price is reasonable and realistic.

Category 2 proposals are recommended for acceptance, acceptance (subject to availability of funds) but at a lower priority than Category 1.

Category 3: The proposal does not demonstrate one or more of the following:

· technical and scientific basis or feasibility,

· meeting agency needs, or

· a reasonable cost/price.

Category 3 proposals are generally not recommended for acceptance.

Proposal Evaluation (Phase II): The primary basis for selecting proposals for exercise of options for Phase II shall be technical approach and funds availability.

Technical Approach– The following subfactors for Technical Approach will be evaluated by Scientific/Peer review.

Technical and Scientific Basis Scientific/Peer review will consider the following subfactors under Technical and Scientific Basis:

1. Based upon the Concept Development Final Report delivered under the base contract (Phase I), the Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s design demonstrates the (11) qualities stated in Section 6.4 of the Broad Agency Announcement.

Feasibility Scientific/Peer review will consider the following subfactors under Feasibility:

1. Based upon the Concept Development Final Report delivered under the base contract (Phase I), the Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposed final technology, technique or strategy is realistically feasible based upon the design, initial state and required development activities.

Funds Availability - Whether there are sufficient funds to award the option.

For Phase II, prior to exercise of options, the S/PR Panel will meet and form a consenus and document consensus comments on which contracts will have the option exercised for Phase II. The S/PR panel will put each Technical Proposal into one of three categories:

Category 1: The proposal demonstrates high technical and scientific basis and feasibility. It is also important to agency programs. The cost/price is reasonable and realistic. Proposals in Category 1 are recommended for acceptance (subject to availability of funds) and usually are displaced only by other Category 1 proposals.

Category 2: The proposal demonstrates technical and scientific basis and feasibility. It is also important to agency programs. The cost/price is reasonable and realistic.

Category 2 proposals are recommended for acceptance, acceptance (subject to availability of funds) but at a lower priority than Category 1.

Category 3: The proposal does not demonstrate one or more of the following:

· technical and scientific basis or feasibility,

· meeting agency needs, or

· a reasonable cost/price.

Category 3 proposals are generally not recommended for acceptance.

Proposal Evaluation and Selection Process:

The proposal evaluation will be conducted through Scientific/Peer Review by a panel of subject matter experts. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. Award(s) will be made to offeror(s) whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered, as described in the preceding sections.

Technical and cost/price proposals submitted under this BAA will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 3.104-4 and 15.207. The Program Officer and other Government scientific experts will perform the evaluation of technical proposals. Cost/price proposals will be evaluated by the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer.

ATTACHMENTS

1.) White Paper Description Template 2.) Statement of Work (SOW) Template