ICAM Submarine Workforce Industrial Base Project FINAL DRAFT.pdf

FEDSIM BAA Announcement # 47QFCA-23-S-00XX

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)

Submarine Workforce and Industrial Base Project in support of:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition &

Sustainment (OUSD A&S)

Innovation Capability & Modernization (ICAM) Office

General Information:

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Number: 47QFCA23SXXXX

BAA Type: Initial Announcement

FEDSIM Project ID: 47QFCA23Z0006

Posted Date: XX October, 2023

White Papers Due: 12:00pm Eastern XX October, 2023

NAICS code for this BAA: 541715 Research and Development, in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).

Anticipated Awards: Single award is anticipated; FEDSIM reserves the right to select for award zero or one of the proposals received in response to this announcement.

Contracting Office Address:

The Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM)

1800 F Street, NW (QF0B)

Washington, D.C. 20405

Points of Contacts (POCs):

All communications and questions associated with this BAA shall be submitted in writing to the

POCs listed below.

Contracting Officer (CO):

Justin Zerbato

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QF0B)

1800 F Street, NW

Telephone: (202) 417-0732

Email: justin.zerbato@gsa.gov

Contract Specialist (CS):

Cynthia Weaver

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QFOB)

1800 F Street, NW

Email: cynthia.weaver@gsa.gov

Matthew Healey

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QFOB)

1800 F Street, NW

Email: matthew.healey@gsa.gov mailto:justin.zerbato@gsa.gov mailto:cynthia.weaver@gsa.gov mailto:matthew.healey@gsa.gov

Table of Contents

1 Funding Opportunity Description 5

1.1 Agency Mission 5

1.2 Background 5

1.3 Current Environment 7

1.4 Purpose 8

1.5 Contract Scope 8

1.5.1 BAA Lines of Effort (LOE) 9

1.5.1.1 LOE #1: Workforce Development 9

1.5.1.2 LOE #2: Supplier Development 11

1.5.1.3 LOE #3: Shipyard Infrastructure 12

1.5.1.4 LOE #4: Strategic Outsourcing 13

1.5.1.5 LOE #6: Technology Opportunities 14

1.5.2 Quarterly Planning Reviews 15

2 Two-phase (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Proposal Selection Approach 15

2.1 Phase 1: White Papers 15

2.2 Phase 2: Full Proposals 16

3 Notional Timeline 16

4 Award and Funding Information 16

5 Eligibility Information/Sources 17

6 Cost Sharing/Funds Matching 17

7 Submissions – General Information and Instructions 17

7.1 General Information 17

7.1.1 General Instructions 18

7.1.2 Availability of Equipment and Software 18

7.1.3 Security Classification of Submissions 19

7.1.4 Contract Type 19

7.1.5 General Award Information 19

7.1.6 Facility Clearance 19

7.1.7 Notifications 19

a. White Papers 19

b. Full Proposals 20

7.1.8 Debriefings 20

7.1.9 Use of Non-Government Advisors 20

7.2 Submission Instructions 20

7.2.1 Delivery 21

7.2.2 Late Submissions 21

7.2.3 Commitment to Small Business 21

7.2.4 White Paper Instructions 22

7.2.5 Full Proposal Instructions 23

8 Evaluation and Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) 31

8.1 Pass/Fail Elements 32

8.2 Evaluation and Selection 32

8.3 BAA Peer Technical Review 32

8.4 White Paper Evaluation Factors 33

8.5 Full Proposal Evaluation Factors 34

9 Data Rights & Proprietary Data 35

9.1 Unlimited or Government Purpose Rights 35

9.2 Government Rights Prior to Contract Award 35

10 Attachments 35

1 Funding Opportunity Description

1.1 Agency Mission

The ICAM office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)) provides the DoD with resources and capabilities to help achieve the strategic goal of a robust, secure, and resilient US industrial base. The ICAM office directly supports the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Resilience (DASD(IBR)) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy (ASD(IBP)), who are aligned toward the strategic aim of industrial base health and resilience. The ICAM office oversees and manages the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program through which this project is funded and implemented.

The IBAS program derives its authorities and mission from 10 USC. § 4817, Industrial Base

Fund, which outlines four statutory objectives:

1. Support the monitoring and assessment of the industrial base;

2. Address critical issues in the industrial base relating to urgent operational needs;

3. Support efforts to expand the industrial base; and

4. Address supply chain vulnerabilities.

As a defense-wide investment line managed in OUSD (A&S), the IBAS program addresses broad, cross-cutting issues that are often beyond the oversight or capability of a single military department or agency to address alone. Therefore, many IBAS investments, including those made through this solicitation, require close teaming with one or more military departments. In the case of this BAA, the ICAM Office is working closely with the Department of the Navy

(DON).

1.2 Background

The Department of Defense (DoD) is on a generational journey to recapitalize its sea-based deterrent and warfighting capabilities in times of both peace and conflict. The nation’s strategic competitors are out-pacing US capabilities or have closed the technology and information gap, making the maritime components of the US defense industrial base (DIB)—and the ability of those components to innovate, implement, and execute faster and better than our adversaries—a fundamental differentiator in the competitive landscape. To help keep the US in a dominant competitive position, the DoD and DON have established the following strategic production and operational imperatives:

1. Deliver USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826) by 2027;

2. Perform the first USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826) deterrence patrol by 2031;

3. Immediately close the production gap of Virginia Class (VCL) submarines and reach the required pace of production for 2 hulls per year; and

4. Support the strategic partnership amongst Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the

US (known as AUKUS) to bolster their allied deterrence and defense capabilities in the

Indo-Pacific by specifically meeting the AUKUS production arrangement and its LOEs.

A formidable challenge for the US Navy is the requirement to rapidly reach and sustain a programmed simultaneous production rate of one Columbia Class (CLB) submarine and two

VCL submarines per year, hence forth referred to as “1+2.” At the same time, the Navy must also sustain existing submarine platforms and fulfill its ambitious surface fleet modernization and sustainment schedules. To accomplish these things, the nation needs a domestic manufacturing base that enables it to regain and sustain its maritime edge, including the ability to surge in a dynamic threat environment.

Several key risks and hurdles threaten these strategic objectives. One of the most significant is the current and projected shortage of highly skilled workers needed to produce and repair the

Navy’s submarines and ships—tens of thousands of workers across multiple industrial skillsets are needed. Industry lacks the capacity to solely solve the workforce shortfalls caused by the combination of baby boomer retirements, far fewer workforce entrants, low unemployment, and intense competition for workers. To achieve the required levels of productivity, we must improve workforce availability and skills, and industry must quickly develop and adopt new, impactful technologies (e.g., additive manufacturing, digital design and engineering tools, new casting and forging methods, more rapid deployment of Industry 4.0 technologies, etc.) to modernize its maritime production supply chains. These risks and hurdles collectively represent a major national security challenge, requiring a “whole of Government, whole of industry” approach to meet it. Working in close partnership with the DON, the IBAS program has issued this BAA as a primary, multi-year effort to address this strategic DoD challenge.

This BAA’s programmatic genesis traces to July 2021 when, in response to these challenges, and with a specific focus on the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine fleet modernization plan, the

Deputy Secretary of Defense tasked the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Cost

Assessment Program Evaluation (CAPE) organization to collaborate with the Navy and the

Industrial Base Policy office to assess current capacity of the “submarine industrial base” (SIB) and identify specific investments necessary for successful execution of Navy plans for nuclear submarine fleet acquisition. That study, focused on six key Lines of Effort (LOEs) to improve

SIB capability and capacity and to mitigate associated risks:

1. Workforce Development: Build and recruit adequate hiring pools for vendors and shipbuilders; train current and future trades; improve wrap-around support to increase student and worker retention.

2. Supplier Development: Add capability and/or capacity to existing suppliers, develop new suppliers to reduce single/sole-source risks for resiliency and robustness, improve first article quality.

3. Shipyard Infrastructure: Accelerate investments in shipbuilder facilities, footprint, machines/fixtures.

4. Strategic Outsourcing: Shift non-core workload away from two major shipbuilders to free up footprint, resources, and focus for shipbuilder-only work.

5. Government Oversight: Increase Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) oversight of the vendor base as a result of strategic outsourcing of traditional shipbuilder work; leverage lessons learned from historical quality and schedule adherence challenges.

6. Technology Opportunities: Implement additive manufacturing, non-destructive test imaging technology and other technology advancements to improve productivity and remove known production risk areas and bottlenecks.

In response, Congress appropriated the FY23 IBAS and DON funding levels sought in the FY23

President’s Budget (PB) request, after which OSD and DON’s Naval Sea Systems Command

(NAVSEA) began leveraging ongoing and emerging industrial workforce and SIB supply chain investment programs to address the above LOEs. Since then, the DoD has requested similar funding levels in the recently submitted FY24 PB, further sustaining the DoD commitment across its Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). This BAA represents a strategic consolidation of much (but not all) of these ongoing ICAM and NAVSEA investment activities focused on

LOEs 1-4 and 6 above, enabling a more integrated DoD approach and strategic partnership between OSD and DON to address these strategic imperatives. The BAA does not include LOE 5 as that effort falls under the Government’s roles and responsibilities. However, the Government anticipates that any contract awarded under this BAA will help enable LOE 5 activities.

1.3 Current Environment

Today’s naval shipbuilding industry is a complex, multi-tiered network of commodity, component, system, and services suppliers spread across every state in the United States. It contains companies of all sizes, each playing a significant role in local economies. Due to the unique characteristics of Navy shipbuilding programs, constantly advancing technology, and various economic factors, the number and type of suppliers supporting shipbuilding is highly dynamic. Globalization (especially loss of domestic commercial manufacturing base), cultural shifts emphasizing higher education institutions over trade schools, and an increasingly services and information technology-based economy have left the supply chain with minimal ability to surge and sustain to meet a dynamic demand. The United States does not have the manufacturing capacity it once had, and the shipbuilding industrial base cannot recover from the decades of

“scaling back” without dramatic, focused action.

On the industrial workforce front, quantifying the gaps in trades and expertise across thousands of suppliers spread throughout dozens of market spaces and industrial tiers is challenging and requires informed modeling to account for multiple factors, including: 1) known and projected workforce and hiring demand (across a complex array of skillsets) by the shipbuilders as well as across their extended networks of suppliers, 2) industrial base activity in adjacent markets (both defense and non-defense) competing for similar skills, 3) the supply of qualified workers, including local, regional, and national demographics and educational and training pipeline capacities, 4) and historical and projected workforce attrition rates. Based on preliminary modeling, the submarine industrial base alone can anticipate an increased hiring demand of

~80,000 – 100,000 trade workers over the next 10 years to meet production needs. To keep pace with the existential threat of shrinking manufacturing base expertise and experience, the nation must view the generational increase in requirements for submarine shipbuilding and maintenance as an opportunity—if not a mandate—to reimagine traditional approaches to skilled labor resource shortages, bridge disconnects between school-based education and domestic defense manufacturing skillsets, and reinvigorate community connection with the importance of the DoD and Navy mission. This BAA seeks offerors who understand these maritime industrial workforce development imperatives well and can deliver the necessary analytical and risk management support to address them in innovative and impactful ways.

In addition to expanding the size and capability of the workforce, a strong need exists to speed the development and adoption of improved manufacturing technologies and processes in key portions of our maritime supply chains. For example, the Navy now recognizes that additive and hybrid (additive plus subtractive) manufacturing and advanced joining technologies offer the potential to improve the cost, schedule, and performance of shipbuilding and ship maintenance/repair operations in home ports and contested environments. These technologies can only deliver on this potential if they evolve quickly to meet Navy needs and if shipbuilders and maintainers have ready access to: certified materials and qualified production processes;

flexible, agile, rapidly deployable manufacturing and automation equipment; and advanced digital sensors (especially for in-situ monitoring during the manufacturing process) feeding decision support systems and processes that enable real-time decisions. A workforce with the know-how to properly apply these technologies will be critical to success. As with the workforce development challenge, this BAA seeks offerors who deeply understand the challenges of advanced manufacturing technology development/adoption and broad, industrial supply chain risk management, including the analytical and risk management frameworks needed to address them.

1.4 Purpose

To address the challenges described in the previous subsections, the Government, through this solicitation, is seeking to establish a multiple-year contract with an Enterprise Integration Partner

(EIP) that, on behalf of, and in close partnership with, the ICAM Office and the Navy, shall identify, develop, and deliver systemic, holistic solutions to regional and broader submarine industrial workforce and industrial base challenges. The EIP will initiate, manage, and integrate activities within regions and across regions, orchestrating their competing priorities and guiding their necessary cooperation. The following Section on Contract Objectives further details the structure, objectives, and activities of the Government’s operational partnership with the EIP.

1.5 Contract Scope

The EIP functional scope of work shall remain consistent with the purpose described in Section

1.4 above resulting in unified actions to accomplish the following “Big 3” contract objectives:

1. Right-size and strengthen the US defense submarine industrial workforce and industrial base by building or strengthening regional DIB workforce development ecosystems and closing industrial workforce skills gaps. This objective maps to LOEs 1 and 4 described in Sections 1.2, 2.1, and 2.4.

2. Increase the manufacturing capacity and technology adoption of US defense submarine industrial base suppliers. This objective maps to LOEs 1 and 6 described in Sections 1.2, 2.1, and 2.5.

3. Diversify, strengthen, and modernize the supply chains providing critical US defense shipbuilding components and systems through supply chain risk management and supplier development. This objective maps to LOEs 1, 2 and 3 described in Sections 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

As part of the above functional scope of work, the EIP, in close partnership with the

Government, shall facilitate the development of associated strategic roadmaps and investment plans and orchestrate associated program execution actions.

The geographic scope/footprint of this BAA and its activities is global, reflecting the same reach as the Navy’s submarine industrial base supply chains themselves, but with regionally developed

/ tailored / focused strategies and execution plans. Known submarine regional focus areas include

New England, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Great Lakes, Southern California, the Gulf Coast

States, Texas, and Indo-PACOM. However, it is permissible and expected for the integrator to define other regions and regional configurations through analysis performed under any resultant contract made under this BAA. Programmatically, work under this effort will focus first on the needs of the Columbia-class program, which formed the basis for the 2021 CAPE study and subsequent Navy funding requests. This guidance does not preclude the inclusion of research and development work in support of other subsurface and surface maritime defense programs at the discretion of the Government, in close coordination with the EIP. The Government acknowledges that the EIP may be called upon to assist the Navy with AUKUS commitments;

therefore, this BAA is inclusive of domestic and international Allied support as required and at the discretion of the Government, in close coordination with the EIP.

1.5.1 BAA Lines of Effort (LOE)

The primary focus of the EIP is to help the Navy rapidly reach and sustain a programmed production rate of 1 Columbia and 2 Virginia Class (“1+2”) submarines per year, with a predominant emphasis on closing associated industrial workforce gaps. While this primary focus area aligns to the five LOEs below, the EIP will need to prioritize any aspects of the LOEs that will aid the Navy in achieving their goal of producing “1+2” submarines per year. The counterpart focus is to strengthen and expand critical maritime segments of the DIB to meet the

Navy’s overall submarine and surface ship production and sustainment requirements.

1.5.1.1 LOE #1: Workforce Development

To close known and projected skills gaps and shortfalls across critical submarine production and sustainment missions, the Government intends to continue actively investing to help build and sustain healthy and thriving submarine industrial base workforce development ecosystems and communities. To accomplish this, the Government seeks an EIP to create and implement a partnership strategy with the ICAM Office, the Navy’s SIB task force, industry, academia, regional trade associations, and state/local Governments that identifies and implements comprehensive programs, approaches, frameworks, and content to sufficiently attract/recruit, train, and retain skilled laborers. The strategy shall leverage data analytics to both improve problem definition as well as develop and implement locally and regionally focused solutions, also integrating any national-level actions and initiatives deemed necessary.

Near term efforts should address state-level workforce pipelines in PA, MA, VA, NY, and CA

(which are known Navy supply chain concentration areas) that focus on reconstituting industry and academic partnerships around known demand signals and customized skillsets. As part of this, the Government is interested in continued scale-up of the IBAS-funded Accelerated

Training in Defense Manufacturing (ATDM) effort, a training program and institute in Danville, VA, and continued maturation of Regional Training Systems (RTSs) – geographic networks of concentrated and distributed recruiting, training, and hiring pipelines with a improved scale and speed, tailored to each region’s unique needs and constraints. Efforts should include continued build-out of RTS ecosystems in New England and Virginia (the latter of which ATDM is a component activity), and emergent efforts in the Great Lakes region. The EIP, in concert with the

Government, is expected to identify other regions for RTS development through analysis performed under this BAA.

This LOE spans several supporting activities and subobjectives, each led by the EIP, but in close partnership and coordination with the Government. The following list of supporting activities and subobjectives is not all inclusive. The EIP may propose other focus areas relevant to this

BAA. Additionally, the EIP and Government shall collectively determine other supporting activities and subobjectives throughout the life of any resultant contract and work in close partnership to collaborate on near term funding efforts during the Quarterly Planning Reviews

(Section 1.5.2).

a. Establish teams to coordinate and build regional workforce systems in key areas to recruit, train, hire, and retain workers to improve and close vital labor gaps.

b. Use data analytics to better define industrial workforce development dynamics and challenges (including demand and supply data), and to help shape and execute investment and policy solutions in DIB-critical regions. This includes but is not limited to the following data collection and analysis:

• Develop the contacts essential to identify authoritative sources of local, regional, and national data and the detailed understanding needed to integrate, analyze, and interpret these data;

• Show the type, magnitude, and location of current and emerging skills gaps;

• Analyze historical data to identify the most significant factors influencing skilled labor supplies and industry demands and develop models to predict future trends; and

• Synthesize conclusions drawn from these analyses to inform, shape and execute investment projects representing effective solution sets.

c. Establish and maintain touch points with DoD programs of record to understand skilled workforce needs and challenges experienced across the lifecycle of critical defense systems and to identify and shape future projects to develop and test potential solutions.

d. Conduct and foster industry, academia, and federal and state government collaboration to inform workforce development.

• In concert with the ICAM Office and the Navy, develop and maintain points of contact within other agencies for insights into their authorities and programs related to workforce development, including areas beyond the scope of IBAS investments.

• Identify and share partnership opportunities for Government at all levels (federal, state, tribal, local, and community), industry, and education stakeholders.

• Identify and recommend programs and funding sources beyond IBAS to strengthen workforce development and to help support students and workers during training programs and improve worker retention (for example, to help with housing, transportation, and childcare needs during training programs).

e. Hold pilot regionalization workshops to identify and activate key players and functional champions in each target area.

f. Develop and complete workforce development outreach and training efforts that include, but aren’t limited to, the following educational settings: K-12, two-year, four-year, and existing Career Technical Education (CTE) centers.

g. Create and expand networking across projects by convening project teams to discuss each project’s objectives, methods, and lessons learned so the teams can build off of each other, identify opportunities to collaborate, and develop new ideas to enrich the workforce development ecosystem.

h. Establish and expand outreach and messaging campaigns (local/regional and national), leveraging existing activities if available and applicable, to promote industrial careers supporting SIB needs.

• Identify and reach out to new target audiences and new opportunity populations— particularly new regions and demographics—to expand messaging to untapped and unconventional labor markets, broadening the aperture of SIB marketing, and therefore reaching those amenable to the mission, but heretofore unaware of the opportunities to participate.

i. Expand networking across investment projects by convening project teams to discuss each project’s objectives, methods, and lessons learned so the teams can build off of each other, identify opportunities to collaborate, and develop new ideas to enrich the workforce development ecosystem.

j. Advance successful investment projects to new areas by adopting and adapting proven pilot approaches to new regions or skills areas.

• Ensure project teams document their lessons learned along with the details of their approach in sharable playbooks to facilitate adaptation and subsequent adoption.

Schedule of Milestones and Deliverables for LOE #1

The offeror shall include in the proposal a schedule of milestones and deliverables tied to offeror-developed performance and success metrics that identify specific measurable contributions to the objectives presented in this LOE and clearly demonstrates how the execution of this contract will contribute to the strategic objectives of the SWIB.

1.5.1.2 LOE #2: Supplier Development

The Government seeks solutions to expand its submarine industrial supplier base. Many opportunities exist to fulfill this LOE, including but not limited to, adding capabilities and capacity, or creating new providers for critical categories such as mechanical, electrical, valves

& fittings, castings & forgings, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), workforce development, technology, or raw materials/sub fabrication. The pursuit to grow the supplier base to meet current and future demands requires insight into critical defense supply chain threats, mitigations, and solution pathways by collecting, organizing, and evaluating information relevant to the development or use of analytic workflows.

In service of this LOE, the Government seeks offerors who will create and apply appropriate analytic methodologies (on data across Government and commercially available databases), including but not limited to: the use of qualitative and quantitative risk analysis methods, engineering and statistical methods (that employ deterministic and probabilistic approaches), and high-end machine learning approaches to create processes or methods for scalability of one or more of the critical categories to reduce the risk of single/sole-source suppliers or having to seek offshore sources of supply.

This LOE spans several supporting activities and subobjectives, each led by the EIP, but in close partnership and coordination with the Government. This following list of supporting activities and subobjectives is not all inclusive. The EIP may propose other focus areas relevant to this

BAA. Additionally, the EIP and Government shall collectively determine other supporting activities and subobjectives throughout the life of this contract and work in partnership with the

Government to collaborate on near term funding efforts during the Quarterly Planning Reviews

(Section 1.5.2).

a. Analyze the sub-tier supply chain ecosystem and identify areas of risk.

b. Develop strategies and implement solutions to improve productivity and capacity capability.

c. Determine how to incentivize current sub-tier suppliers and private shipyards to not only stay in business, but to expand production / maintenance capabilities.

d. Implement strategies to increase commercial shipyard throughput in key regions.

e. Identify new domestic sources for critical shipbuilding subsystems and/or components.

f. Discover root causes of maintenance delays and enact corrective actions with suppliers to reduce maintenance timelines.

Schedule of Milestones and Deliverables for LOE #2

The offeror shall include in the proposal a schedule of milestones and deliverables tied to offeror-developed performance and success metrics that identify specific measurable contributions to the objectives presented in this LOE and clearly demonstrates how the execution of this contract will contribute to the strategic objectives of the SWIB.

1.5.1.3 LOE #3: Shipyard Infrastructure

Submarine production is critical to the Navy and Nation; schedules call for greater production

(by tonnage) than at any point since World War II. To meet this demand, the Navy is working with the shipbuilders to support capital investments required to provide the fixtures, footprint, and industrial equipment to meet this surging demand. The Government has invested and continues to invest in facilities at shipbuilder locations to expand and modernize shipyard infrastructure to support submarine production requirements. The Government is interested in strategies to streamline facility builds or accelerate its investments in existing shipbuilding facilities, footprint, and machines/fixtures to achieve the 1+2 submarine production rate while also sustaining the existing fleet. This LOE does not include actual construction or repair of actual facilities.

This LOE spans several supporting activities and subobjectives, each led by the EIP, but in close partnership and coordination with the Government. This following list of supporting activities and subobjectives is not all inclusive. The EIP may propose other focus areas. Additionally, the offeror shall determine other supporting activities and subobjectives throughout the life of any resultant contract and work in partnership with the Government to collaborate on near term funding efforts during the Quarterly Planning Reviews (Section 1.5.2).

a. Assist the Navy with developing a national strategic functional dry dock plan across public and private shipyards to increase the number of functional dry docks to meet both current and future shipbuilding needs and maintenance requirements.

b. Determine both a near term critical equipment modernization roadmap and a long-term equipment modernization lifecycle to ensure current problems cease to occur again and implement corrective actions at each current shipbuilder facility.

c. Generate and implement strategies to accelerate current shipbuilding facility expansion.

d. Work with industry to implement shipbuilding facility layout changes to optimize production and decrease shipbuilding and maintenance timelines while limiting facility downtime.

Assist shipbuilders in determining methodologies for reducing inventory space requirements.

1.5.1.4 LOE #4: Strategic Outsourcing

Even with a concentrated effort to invest in shipbuilder infrastructure, existing prime submarine builders do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 1+2 rate without strategically outsourcing various core workload ranging from smaller-scale shop work to sheet metal fabrication, to the assembly of entire decks and outfitting of modules. Specifically, the shipbuilders’ updated plan requires the outsourcing of 5 million labor-hours every year in support of 1+2. There are also efforts to strategically source non-core work and “make to buy” items to alleviate capacity and footprint constraints at the shipyards thus allowing the Contractor to focus on shipbuilder-only work.

The Government seeks ideas for strategic investment processes, approaches, and tools to support analyses of alternatives assessments and conduct better-informed maritime industrial base planning and decision making. The Government is interested in identifying any emerging investment related products, capabilities, technologies, or workforce development efforts that have potential to free up much needed footprint, resources, and focus for work that must be done at the submarine shipbuilders’ facilities.

This LOE spans several supporting activities and subobjectives, each led by the EIP, but in close partnership and coordination with the Government. This following list of supporting activities and subobjectives is not all inclusive. The EIP may propose other focus areas relevant to this

BAA. Additionally, the EIP and Government shall collectively determine other supporting activities and subobjectives throughout the life of this contract and work in partnership with the

Government to collaborate on near term funding efforts during the Quarterly Planning Reviews

(Section 1.5.2).

a. Work with current shipbuilders to identify strategic outsourcing opportunities and help implement regional efforts to meet shipbuilders’ needs to increase overall production rates.

b. Ensure a viable supply base is ready to meet identified outsourcing opportunities.

• Facilitate industry engagements to communicate future demands and gain visibility into current and projected supplier performance.

• Determine industrial base readiness, including sub-tier suppliers, and identify opportunities to ensure performance.

➢ Complete risk assessments, supplier quality assessments, surveys, scorecards, and onsite visits.

̶ Discover opportunities to improve efficiency, collaborate to manage risk, and improve overall team performance.

̶ Evaluate facility capacity and capital improvement plans.

̶ Assess supplier and sub-tier suppliers’ capability and capacity.

• Implement regional efforts based upon assessment and industry engagement results.

c. Assist suppliers in moving toward a level loaded schedule, with a delivery cadence consistent with the customer demand rate.

Schedule of Milestones and Deliverables for LOE #4

The offeror shall include in the proposal a schedule of milestones and deliverables tied to offeror-developed performance and success metrics that identify specific measurable contributions to the objectives presented in this LOE and clearly demonstrates how the execution of this contract will contribute to the strategic objectives of the SWIB.

1.5.1.5 LOE #6: Technology Opportunities

Advanced manufacturing technology that supports production and workforce efficiency/effectiveness (e.g., automated welding, robotics, additive manufacturing (AM), and other industry 4.0 advancements) is not effectively deployed across the SIB. The Navy is striving to make strategic and appropriately aggressive decisions to incentivize industry adoption, improve productivity, and appropriately balance risks and opportunities.

Advanced manufacturing such as additive and hybrid manufacturing serves as a “force multiplier” to give the submarine enterprise a dedicated, agile, and responsive capability to improve material availability and cost and schedule performance, and to limit reliance on sole sources of supply. Current efforts focus on building and executing a consortium of industry and academic experts to select high-impact materials and processes and to activate a maritime industrial base that can support the required volume, automated inspection of advanced materials, and adoption of robotic welding. In early FY23, the Navy/Industry team stood up an

AM Center of Excellence (CoE) in Danville, VA focused on scalability and technical rigor with velocity. The CoE is focused on activating the industrial base for more mature AM alloys, while a Navy / Industry / Academia consortium is working to aggressively mature several additional high impact alloys. Government investments will further these areas and bring the AM CoE additional capability in machines / manning.

While rapid maturation and infusion of advanced and additive manufacturing is a key target of

SIB investment dollars and resources, there are other advanced technologies on which to focus near term efforts, including but not limited to, Non-destructive testing (NDT), Artificial

Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML), and digital design and engineering tools. The

Government is interested in targeting development, scaling, rapid maturation, and infusion of

AM and AI / ML into various maritime industrial base production efforts and workforce efficiency / effectiveness programs.

The Government also seeks to advance current advanced manufacturing processes and identify other processes, materials, or opportunities to give the submarine enterprise a dedicated, agile, and responsive capability to improve material availability and cost and schedule performance, and to limit reliance on sole sources of supply. In parallel, there is critical need to establish the requisite quality and certification standards to ensure performance and safety specifications are achieved.

This LOE spans several supporting activities and subobjectives, each led by the EIP, but in close partnership and coordination with the Government. This following list of supporting activities and subobjectives is not all inclusive. The EIP may propose other focus areas relevant to this

BAA. Additionally, the EIP and Government shall collectively determine other supporting activities and subobjectives throughout the life of this contract and work in partnership with the

Government to collaborate on near term funding efforts during the Quarterly Planning Reviews

(Section 1.5.2).

a. Work with the Navy to advance the sea service’s understanding of and comfort level with advanced manufacturing technology and processes.

b. Partner with the Navy and Industry to determine what field sub-certified parts at scale with additive and advanced manufacturing processes.

c. Determine what workforce gaps should be filled by advanced manufacturing systems.

d. Create collaboration and technology transfer opportunities to digitize the supply chain and public and private shipyards.

Schedule of Milestones and Deliverables for LOE #6

The offeror shall include in the proposal a schedule of milestones and deliverables tied to offeror-developed performance and success metrics that identify specific measurable contributions to the objectives presented in this LOE and clearly demonstrates how the execution of this contract will contribute to the strategic objectives of the SWIB.

1.5.2 Quarterly Planning Reviews

The EIP as instructed shall hold quarterly planning reviews throughout the PoP where the organization and Government collaborate on near term funding efforts. The EIP needs flexibility and agility to quickly pivot to handle new or emerging DoD issues and initiatives as directed by the Government.

2 Two-phase (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Proposal Selection Approach

The BAA process consists of two phases: a white paper phase and a full proposal phase.

Submission and governmental evaluation of white papers is required before invited offerors can submit a full proposal. The white paper phase screening for technical and operational feasibility

(in advance of full proposal invitations) helps to streamline the down-select process and strike a fair balance between offerors’ bid and proposal resources and the Government’s evaluation requirements. Offerors submitting white papers may be invited to submit a full technical and cost proposal of their white paper submission; however, any such invitation is in no way an obligation on the part of the Government to award a contract. Decisions regarding the invitation to submit a full proposal will be based on Government evaluation as described in Section 8. An offeror that does NOT submit a timely and compliant White Paper is NOT eligible (and thus cannot be invited) to submit a Full Proposal for consideration for award.

Once submissions, both white papers and full proposals, are evaluated, responses to Offerors will be provided via email notification from the CO/CS per Section 7.1.7 below.

2.1 Phase 1: White Papers

Phase 1 of the selection process consists of this announcement and a call for submission of white papers. An Offeror may submit a white paper to become the EIP responsible for addressing all five described LOEs.

Offerors submitting white papers may not be invited to submit a full proposal for any of the following three reasons (not inclusive): 1) Proposed solution is deemed not responsive to

Government needs; 2) Proposed solution is deemed to have unacceptably high schedule and/or cost risk or is unaffordable; or 3) Proposed solution is deemed insufficiently mature for project development.

2.2 Phase 2: Full Proposals

Phase 2 of the selection process begins when the CO makes requests to selected Offeror/s to submit full technical and cost proposals. An Offeror can be considered for contract award only upon preparation and submission of a fully compliant Phase 2 proposal based on the

Government’s request for full proposal. All full proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in Section 8.5.

The Government will select one Offeror’s full proposal for award. If no proposals are deemed acceptable, the Government reserves the right to make no awards. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to accept a full proposal for award consideration in its entirety or may select portions of a full proposal for award consideration and funding. The Government may also recommend reshaping and/or re-scoping the effort into phases or blocks, including shorter periods of performance with the potential for options, if appropriate, to quickly substantiate proof-of-concept or assess the validity or feasibility of the effort for greater potential use. In these cases, revised contract scope and funding details will be established during negotiations between the Government and the Offeror.

It is the policy of FEDSIM to treat all proposals submitted under this BAA as sensitive competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

3 Notional Timeline

Table 1 Notional Timeline

Event

Calendar

Days

BAA Released 0

White Papers Due +15

Government Request for Full Proposals +30

Full Proposal Due Date +75

Proposal Evaluation/Negotiations Completed +120

Contract(s) Awarded +150

4 Award and Funding Information

The Government anticipates a single award to one EIP for this announcement. However, the

Government’s single award may entail less than the full scope proposed by the Offeror, or the

Government may make no award at its discretion, subject to changing requirements and the availability of funds. The Government may terminate work at any time if it no longer meets the needs of the Government.

The ceiling value of this BAA is estimated to be $2,500,000,000.00.

The Government intends to make the following approximate budget allocations across LOEs 1-4, and 6:

• 70% to workforce development initiatives (LOE #1);

• 20-25% to the combination of supplier development (LOE #2), strategic outsourcing

(LOE #4) and technology opportunities (LOE #6); and

• 5-10% to shipyard infrastructure support (LOE #3).

The period of performance (PoP) for projects, inclusive of options, may be up to 5 years.

5 Eligibility Information/Sources

This is an unrestricted solicitation. All responsible sources, as defined at FAR 9.104-1, capable of satisfying the Government’s objectives of this solicitation may submit a white paper under this announcement. Small businesses, large businesses, nonprofit, and academic institutions are eligible to submit white papers and/or participate in teaming arrangements in submitting white papers. No portion of this announcement will be set aside for small businesses or other socio-economic participation.

All Offerors submitting white papers and full proposals must:

a. Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submission;

b. Provide a valid unique entity identifier in its submissions; and

c. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by any agency; and

d. SAM may be accessed at https://www.sam.gov/content/home

Federally Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research

Centers (UARCs), and Department of Energy National Laboratories, are not eligible to receive awards under this BAA and therefore not eligible to submit white papers and full proposals.

However, teaming arrangements with principal Offerors are allowed so long as such arrangements are permitted under the sponsoring agreement between the Government and the specific FFRDC/UARC/DoE Lab.

Department of Defense and civilian agency laboratories, and military universities are also not eligible to receive awards under this BAA and should not directly submit either white papers or full proposals in response to this BAA. If any such organization is interested in one or more of the programs described herein, the organization should contact the ICAM office directly to discuss its area of interest.

6 Cost Sharing/Funds Matching

Cost sharing is not expected under contracts or agreements awarded from this BAA and will not be used as a factor during the merit review of any proposal hereunder; however, the Government may consider voluntary cost sharing if proposed. Additional guidance can be found at 2 CFR

200.306 and FAR 35.003.

7 Submissions – General Information and Instructions

7.1 General Information

The Government will consider proposals to be valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from the date of delivery.

https://www.sam.gov/content/home

7.1.1 General Instructions

a. The Offeror is expected to examine this entire solicitation document. Failure to do so will be at the Offeror’s own risk.

b. The Government may make award based on the initial offer of a full proposal it receives, without discussion of such offer. Proposals shall set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation package (including Attachments listed in

Section 10). The penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18

U.S.C. 1001.

c. An Offeror submitting restricted data shall mark it as follows in accordance with the FAR

52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition, which is incorporated by reference. FAR Clause 52.215-1(e) states: “Restriction on disclosure and use of data.

Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall –

1. Mark the cover page with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed-in whole or in part-for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract 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 provided in the resulting contract. 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]; and

2. Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

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

d. The Government assumes no liability for disclosure or use of unmarked data and may use or disclose the data for any purpose. Unless restricted, information submitted in response to this request may become subject to disclosure to the public pursuant to the provisions of the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)

e. This procurement is conducted under the procedures of FAR Subpart 15 and 35. The policies and procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3 do not apply.

f. The cost of preparing submissions in response to this solicitation is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting or any other contract; however, it may be an allowable expense to a normal Bid and Proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR 31.205-

18. Do not lock any files submitted as part of the proposal submission. Proposal prices and terms and conditions shall remain valid for 120 days from the submission date.

7.1.2 Availability of Equipment and Software

All commercial hardware and software proposed in response to this solicitation document shall have been formally announced for general release on or before the closing date of the solicitation. Failure to have equipment or software announced prior to submission of proposal may render the Offeror’s proposal NOT ACCEPTABLE.

All commercial and non-commercial hardware and software proposed in response to this solicitation document shall not have been formally announced as at its end of life or end of technical support by its publisher or licensor. Proposal of commercial or non-commercial hardware and software that is at its end of life may render the Offeror’s proposal NOT

ACCEPTABLE.

7.1.3 Security Classification of Submissions

White paper and Proposal documentation submitted under this BAA are expected to be

Unclassified.

7.1.4 Contract Type

A Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and/or Time and Material/Labor Hours (T&M) type contract, is planned to be awarded under this BAA. Offerors with adequate accounting systems (as identified in FAR 16.301-3) shall propose CPFF contracts. Contract periods of performance will be for a

12-month base, with up to four 12-month options.

If an Offeror’s proposal enhances work being performed under other DoD projects, the Offeror must clearly identify the point of departure, what existing work will be brought forward, and what new work will be performed under this BAA.

A model contract is provided as Attachment B.

7.1.5 General Award Information

The Government intends to make a single award resulting from this announcement and reserves the right to select for award one or none of the proposals received. The award will be made based on the proposal that is determined to be most advantageous to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors found in Section 8.4 and the availability of funding.

Award may not necessarily be made to the proposal offering the lowest cost/price or receiving the highest evaluated rating. The Government reserves the rights to make an award without discussions, conduct discussions if determined to be necessary, and remove Offeror from…