AWSBAA.doc

Affordable Weapons System(s) Document Type: Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

TITLE: Affordable Weapons System(s) (AWS)

Solicitation Number: N00019-07-R-0095 BAA Posting Date: 3 July 2007

Pre-Proposal Conference: 17 July 2007

Response Date: 22 August 2007, no later than 2:00 PM Eastern Time

Classification Code: A-Research & Development

NAICS Code: 541710 Research & Development in the Physical, Engineering and Life Sciences

Contracting Office Address: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, NAVAIR HQ, Building 2272, 47123 Buse Road Unit IPT, Room 256, Patuxent River, MD 20670

DESCRIPTION

This notice constitutes a BAA as contemplated by FAR 6.102(d)(2). This BAA is listed at http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_business/open_solicitations/index.cfm. All associated documentation, and updates, will be posted at the above website.

1.0 Introduction: The Program Executive Office for Weapons and Unmanned Air Vehicles (PEO(W)) is releasing this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as an unclassified solicitation to seek proposals for research support toward developing innovative solutions for the mission requirements for sea-based land attack and strike mission Affordable Weapons System(s) which will operate from ships, with potential sea-based Naval, Navy/Marine Corp and Maritime, aircraft launch capability, will be capable of defeating targets at standoff ranges, and can rapidly complete the engagement phase consistent with making the kill chain short, for example, either by potentially loitering in the target area or by rapidly moving from the launch platform to the target. The Affordable Weapon System(s) can potentially be directed to the target by the shooter or a forward observer/forward air controller. In short, the Government is looking for an Affordable Weapon System that can kill a wide variety of targets with a flyaway cost of not more than $250,000 per unit. Concepts developed under this BAA may be considered in the development of future Affordable Weapons System(s). The Navy’s desire is to develop transformational Affordable Weapons System(s) for implementation in the 2016 timeframe, concurrent with other planned weapon systems and improvements.

2.0 Background: The Navy believes that by reducing the developmental and unit costs for weapons by exploiting available and emerging technologies, transformational reductions in total cost of ownership cost can be achieved. The integration of Affordable Weapons System(s) enables the creation of an overarching Naval Weapons architecture that can effectively enhance mission performance and result in improved cost and mission effectiveness. The desired outcome of this study is a capability based definition and overarching systems architecture. This study and architecture will support the development of an Affordable Weapons System(s), while taking advantage of the Navy’s forward deployed/world-wide presence to provide persistent, on-demand strike and hold multiple targets/target types at risk. The study should be constrained by the limits of the objectives listed in paragraph 3.0.

3.0 Program Goals: PEO(W) is seeking industry engagement to develop innovative ways to perform the sea-based land attack and strike mission(s) at standoff beyond air defense threat engagement within a net-centric environment. The goal of this research effort is to develop system level alternatives with identified predicted performance and reliability. These alternatives will provide optimal Affordable Weapons System(s) supporting sea-based land attack and strike mission(s), while leveraging existing and projected capabilities and infrastructure provided by a family of systems. Concepts must be substantiated by trade studies and analyses that demonstrate the potential of the proposed alternative to meet the optimum mix of the broad mission objectives of Sections 3.1 – 3.8 within the cost constraint of Section 3.1.

3.1 Flyaway Cost: The Government is looking for an Affordable Weapon System that can kill a wide variety of targets with a flyaway cost of not more than $250,000 per unit. Unit price represented in FY08$, is an average unit cost for a production rate of 1200 per year based upon a 15 year production run using an annual procurement (not multi-year buy).

3.2 Sea-Based Land Attack and Strike Mission Affordable Weapons System(s): The system(s) will operate from ships, with potential sea-based Naval aircraft, launch capability, and will be capable of defeating targets at standoff ranges. Naval Surface Combatants, Marine Corps, Navy and Maritime aircraft may be considered by the offeror.

3.3 Representative Target Sets to Include Conventional and Irregular Warfare Targets: The target sets of interest include: (1)Strategic Fixed Targets, (2)Strategic Mobile Targets, (3)Tactical/Call for Fire Targets, and (4)Irregular Warfare/Global War on Terrorism Targets. The offeror shall use the minimum acceptable level of damage to each target to achieve a functional kill (0.8 probability) as a guide. Time critical targets and target access shall be considered against the 2016 time frame.

3.3.1 Strategic Fixed Targets: Include revetted EW/GCI radars, unhardened concrete C2 buildings, electrical transformer yards, highway bridges, unhardened aircraft maintenance hangar, POL storage, areas of aircraft on the ground, chemical/biological agent production and storage sites, and landline communication equipment (enclosed). The threats associated with these targets consist of advanced theater-defense class strategic SAMs.

3.3.2 Strategic Mobile Targets: Include theater ballistic missile transporter/erector/launchers, strategic SAM launchers, strategic SAM fire control radars, large combatant ships in port, and strategic SAM C2 vans. The threats associated with these targets consist of advanced theater-defense class strategic SAMs.

3.3.3 Tactical/Call for Fire Targets: Consist of short dwell, moving and relocatable tactical SAM TELARs, self-propelled artillery, weapon caches in the open, field fortifications for tactical C2, areas of personnel in the open, and unarmored combat vehicles. The threats associated with these targets consist of advanced point-defense class tactical SAMs.

3.3.4 Irregular Warfare/Global War On Terrorism Targets: Consist of small groups of high value targets or cargo in the open or in small unhardened buildings, training facilities and safe havens (buildings and caves), narcotics production and distribution sites, conventional vehicles with high-value passengers or cargo, and CBRNE production and storage facilities. The threats associated with these targets consist of current- and older-generation MANPADS, anti-aircraft artillery, and small arms.

3.4 Offerors: Offerors are encouraged to limit impact of integration on ships and aircraft.

3.5 Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s): Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s) should be tactically responsive and capable of flexible employment in typical littoral environments the Navy/Marine Corps is expected to operate and fight within. The contractor shall consider the Affordable Weapon System(s) to potentially be tailorable against different target sets. Offerors shall include defeating targets at standoff ranges, and can rapidly complete the engagement phase consistent with making the kill chain short. The Affordable Weapon System(s) can potentially be directed to the target by the shooter or a forward observer/forward air controller.

3.6 Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s): Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s) should possess interoperability and connectivity with U.S. Naval, joint and multi-national forces. Individual platform data/information dissemination rates approximate the Net Enabled Weapons Architecture capability. Training, mission-planning, targeting, firecontrol/C3 for weapons should be considered.

3.7 Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s): Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s) design approach(es) should consider modular, open systems architecture.

3.8 Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s): Proposed Affordable Weapons System(s) design approach(es) should achieve an optimum balance of inherent characteristics in robustness, operational availability (reliability, safety, maintainability, supportability) and affordability in terms of TOC and flyaway cost.

4.0 BAA Tasks: There are four tasks associated with this BAA that will help define the Navy/Marine Corps’s path to meet Affordable Weapons System(s) capabilities and mission objectives described in paragraph 3.0. Tasks 1, and 2 will make up the base contract as Phase I, and tasks 3, and 4 will be included as a priced option accomplished as Phase II, as explained in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5. The first task (Mission Analysis) establishes Affordable Weapons System(s) mission performance metrics and explores the capabilities necessary for optimally performing the Affordable Weapons System(s) mission(s) from ships and potentially Navy/Marine Corps aircraft as part of the family weapon systems. The second task (System Architecture) defines the sea-based land attack and strike mission architecture in a network centric environment, defining the optimal flow of information to and from the Affordable Weapons System(s) called out in paragraph 3.0, defining efficient interfaces between the systems and the network, and uses a systems engineering process to develop a conceptual design. The third task (Best Material Approach(es)) transforms the capabilities and architectures into an Affordable Weapons System(s) and creates a conceptual technical baseline(s). The fourth task (Risk Assessment) develops a risk assessment in realizing the concept within the intended timeframe.

4.1 Task #1 Mission Analysis: Whatever approach(es) the offeror uses for mission concept analysis and/or mission analysis, the offeror shall document their approach and rationale.

4.1.1 Mission Concept Analysis: The contractor shall provide a broad and thorough analysis of the potential solution space that is achievable within the constraints. The contractor shall conduct analysis of warfighting needs to establish the utility of Affordable Weapon System(s). These analyses may be analogous to the Functional Area Analysis (FAA), the Functional Needs Analysis (FNA), and the Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA) portions of the analysis. Definitions for these terms can be found in CJCSM 3170.01C. CDRL A002

4.1.2 Mission Analysis: Assess the affordable weapon capabilities available in the 2016 timeframe and formulate a method to measure how well the affordable weapon(s) fits into the Weapon Family of Systems (WFoS), performing the affordable weapon mission(s) within the battlespaces. Define affordable weapon related metrics for mission(s) effectiveness and mission(s) performance for the WFoS. Examine system capabilities and weigh their relative contribution to overall mission effectiveness within a WFoS environment. CDRL A002

4.2 Task #2 System Architecture: Provide a description of the conceptual family of systems architecture performing sea-based land attack and strike mission. The description may consider the networked battle-space environment likely in the 2016 and beyond time frame, in which targets may be fixed, relocatable, or moving; and target coordinates may be updated in flight via third parties (including Forward Observers or Forward Air Controllers) coordinates, relative targeting, and/or target images. Innovative approaches to weapon affordability, including COTS, are encouraged. Thoroughly describe the architectural design for each consideration and evaluate factors affecting system performance, technical risk and cost effectiveness. Contractors are encouraged to address additional issues relevant to their conceptual design. The contractor may provide inputs to potentially help the Government prepare draft requirements. Results should be accompanied by business case analyses and supporting DoD Architectural Framework compliant technical, operational (high level) and system architectural views.

4.2.1 Offeror Recommendations: The offeror is encouraged to address additional topics such as technology development activities and/or CONOPs changes that could provide future benefit to affordable weapons solutions. The offeror’s recommendation shall address military utility. CDRL A002

4.2.2 Flyaway Cost: Flyaway Cost Analysis and impact to TOC shall be identified. The offeror shall provide cost models and assumptions used to generate the average unit Flyaway cost for the offeror’s Preferred System Concept(s). The Government is looking for an Affordable Weapon System that can kill a wide variety of targets with a flyaway cost of not more than $250,000 per unit. Unit price represented in FY08$, is an average unit cost for a production rate of 1200 per year based upon a 15 year production run using an annual procurement (not multi-year buy). The impact to TOC shall address the Non-recurring development and platform integration costs as well as the operating and support costs. Provide an estimate of weapon(s) re-certification interval, if required. Flyaway and TOC definitions can be found at www.ncca.navy.mil. The cost assessment shall be based on a notional program plan developed by the contractor taking into account program risk. The cost estimates shall identify and address the functional needs for mission success. CDRL A003

4.3 Systems Engineering: Define and explore the available trade space to determine the range of attainable operational effectiveness for the Affordable Weapons System(s) against the required investment. The definition of weapon system must consider other Weapon Family of Systems (WFoS) members and should address weapon system capabilities, command and control, mission planning, targeting, development and projected life cycle cost. The Offeror shall provide modeling and simulation of the Affordable Weapon System(s) to determine how performance trades affect weapons systems effectiveness in operational scenarios. Evidence of model and simulation validation and verification shall also be provided. CDRL A002

4.4 Task #3 (Option) Best Materiel Approach(es): Offerors are encouraged to investigate innovative design concepts that will provide affordable weapon(s) capability at a greatly reduced cost. Offerors are also encouraged to address innovative means to reduce development costs for the weapon(s). The offeror shall show a linkage from affordable weapons definition and constraints to sub-system concepts and technologies and their performance. Allocate mission critical functions across the systems and sub-systems to develop a technical design baseline from a conceptual design using system engineering processes. Provide a detailed description of the Affordable Weapon System, and sub-systems, and how it’s capabilities meets mission requirements. The offerors shall identify anticipated service life, environmental limits, reliability, and system’s operational tempo. Prescribe a test program to certify the system. Using the results of these analyses, the offeror shall provide their best material approaches. The offeror shall utilize technical and business case analyses of these material approaches to support the offeror’s Preferred System Concept(s) (PSC). The offeror shall provide a report providing analyses performed and modeling and simulation supporting the offeror’s PSC. CDRL A002

4.4.1 Offeror Recommendations: The offeror is encouraged to update their recommendations provided in Phase I. CDRL A002

4.4.2 Flyaway Cost: The offeror shall update their Flyaway Cost analyses accomplished in Phase I. The offer shall include and address critical parts required for mission success. CDRL A003

4.5 Task #4 (Option) Risk Assessment: Perform a risk assessment on the feasibility of realizing the proposed technical baseline within the stated timeframe. The risk assessment should address both technology risks, as defined by the Technology Readiness Assessment process, as well as development risks, as defined by the Risk Assessment Overview. Risk Assessments shall describe risks in terms of technical and cost by assessing technology maturity readiness levels and risk mitigation plans for each in accordance with the current release of NAVAIR Instruction 5000.21. It is anticipated that some technologies may have relatively high risk due to the constrained cost objectives so realistic risk and cost mitigation plans are needed. Consideration shall be provided for manufacturing readiness level assessment for new or emerging technologies presented in the design concept. To portray schedule risk, prepare an engineering development plan for each major subsystem to develop, integrate, and test the conceptual technical baseline, beginning in 2010 and anticipating Initial Operational Capability of 2016. The plan should estimate a program schedule, cost, human resource requirements, and major material procurements for each phase of the hardware and software design & development, integration and test phases. Risk assessments pertaining to external dependencies should be discussed as well. CDRL A002

4.5.1 Future Plans: The contractor shall identify their technologies and their Technology Readiness Level (TRL) levels. The offeror shall provide plans and an event driven schedule to advance system technology to TRL of 6. TRL 6 is “System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment" – described as a "Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment.” TRL 5 is "Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment." CDRL A002 4.6 Fund and Program Reviews: This paragraph is applicable to all phases. A kick off review will be required during the 1st month of each phase. Semi annual program reviews will be required along with quarterly fund status reviews will be required. CDRL A001, A004

5.0 Program Schedule: The Government plans to award approximately $27M in funding for Phase I. Phase II optional awards, if any, will be based on the availability of funds. Multiple awards are anticipated for Phase I and II. For Government programmatic flexibility, offeror(s) shall segment their cost proposals into an initial 12-month Phase I. Phase II shall be proposed as an optional effort based upon a 12-month effort.

6.0 Contracts: Teaming is encouraged provided it does not result in any anti-competitive teaming arrangements. An offeror may submit more than one proposal. Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for Small Business. Pursuant to the requirements of FAR 19.702(a)(1), if proposal total exceeds $550,000, large businesses will be required to include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their proposal package. For proposed awards to be made as contracts to large businesses, the social-economic merits of each proposal will be evaluated based on the extent of the Offeror’s commitment in providing meaningful subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, veteran owned small businesses, service disabled veteran owned small businesses, HBCUs, and MI. Proposals at prime and subcontract levels from US Government entities, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), and other offerors who are proposing additional work under existing task order contracts, will not be considered under this BAA.

6.1 Number of Awards: NAVAIR anticipates conducting a single round of proposal receipt, evaluation, selection, and award. Upon completion of the evaluation of all offers, the offerors will be notified that (1) the proposal has been selected for funding pending contract negotiations, or (2) the proposal has not been selected. One copy of each non-selected proposal will be retained for the files. Any additional copies of non-selected proposals will be destroyed upon non-selection. Awards under this BAA will be made to offerors on the basis of the evaluation criteria below, providing the best value to the Government. Awards will be subject to the availability of funds. Awards, including options, will be accomplished on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) basis. Phase II will also be FFP, with pricing based on the cost proposal. A price for Phase II must be included or the options will not be considered. The Government reserves the right to select for award all, some, or none of the proposals received.

6.2 Deliverables: Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRL) A001, A002, A003 and A004.

7.0 Pre-Proposal Conference Details: The conference is to be held at The Daugherty Conference Center, at 22111 Three Notch Road, Lexington Park, MD, on 17 July 2007, from 8:30 – 12:30. If your company plans on attending the conference, contact both Mr. Thompson and Ms. Jackson via the contracting office address above or via email to Rene.Thompson@navy.mil and Tammy.Jackson@navy.mil. Companies are limited to five attendees. There will be no one-on-one meetings, although there will be a question and answer period at the conference. All questions concerning this BAA shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer, Mr. Rene Thompson and Ms. Tammy Jackson to the contracting office address above or via email to Rene.Thompson@navy.mil and Tammy.Jackson@navy.mil, by COB 10 July 2007.

8.0 Proposals:

8.1 General Instructions: In order to be considered for an award, proposals (consisting of Volume I, II, lll and IV) must be received no later than 2:00 pm Eastern time on 22 August 2007. Proposals received after the closing date will not be reviewed or evaluated. Proposals shall be prepared in the English language. All pages shall be printable on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper with type no smaller than 12 point. Offers shall submit one (1) signed original, five (5) copies, paper and digital. The digital copies are to be on CD-ROMs in Microsoft Office format. Mail response to the DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, COMMANDER, ATTN: Tammy Jackson AIR 2.4.1.4.6, BLDG 2272 STE 256, NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547.

Information or data deemed proprietary by the author shall be clearly marked. Offerors that intend to include classified information or data as part of their proposals shall submit an unclassified proposal referring to a classified annex. Proposals shall not include classified information higher than secret. The offeror shall contact the Technical POC, Gary Evans at (301) 757-7180, for guidance on submitting the classified annex.

8.2 Volume l - Affordable Weapon Flyaway Cost: The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements of the BAA (including but not limited to trade studies, estimating assumptions, learning curves and projection assumptions) while staying within the 3.1 cost constraints. The page limitation for this volume is twenty (20) pages.

8.3 Volume Il -Technical: The technical volume shall consist of a cover sheet, an abstract, and three (3) Sections, Sections I,II, and III.

The Cover Sheet shall identify the BAA number; proposal title; offeror's number (if any); lead organization submitting the proposal; type of business (large, small, educational institution, other not-for-profit or non-profit, etc.); other team members (if applicable) and their types of business; technical point(s) of contact; and administrative point(s) of contact.

The abstract shall consist of a 150-200 word unclassified synopsis of the effort proposed.

Section I is a summary of the proposal to be identified in Section II.

Section II is a detailed proposal; this section shall provide a detailed discussion of the proposed work to enable an in-depth review of all technical and management issues. This section shall address the risks, approach, manufacturing readiness, and payoffs of the proposed effort. For each phase/option your proposal shall provide: (1) A detailed description of the technical issues, including meeting the requirements cited in paragraph 4.0, the proposed approach, its basis, and a comparison with other ongoing efforts showing both the advantages and disadvantages. (2) Innovative claims for the proposed research including all proprietary claims to results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this shall be stated. (3) A Statement of Work (SOW) for Phases I and II (option) that describes the scope of the effort, the schedule, specific tasks, milestones, and deliverables for the effort. (4) A description of the proposed approach to management of the project including an organizational chart showing reporting relationships, statements of the responsibilities of the team members, and the teaming strategy. (5) A description of the experience and capabilities of the offeror, each team member, and key personnel; a description of their capability to carry out further development and production; and a description of the facilities and equipment that would be used for the proposed effort. (6) How the offeror plans to manage risk shall be described. (7) How the offeror plans to manage manufacturing readiness shall be described. (8) Offeror’s Small Business Utilization will also be reviewed.

The maximum total length of Sections I and II, together with any figures, tables, and/or charts, or classified annex, is limited to a maximum seventy-five (75) pages.

Section III shall contain all affirmations relative to NAVAIR's Organizational Conflict of Interest requirements. In addition, this section may provide a bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished), which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based; however, PEO(W) is under no obligation to review and evaluate the papers. Awards made under this BAA are subject to the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5, Organizational Conflict of Interest. All offerors and proposed subcontractors must affirmatively state whether they are supporting any NAVAIR technical office(s) through either: (1) an active NAVAIR contract or subcontract; or (2) an active contract or subcontract administered on NAVAIR's behalf by another Government agent. All affirmations must state which office(s) the offeror supports and identify the prime contract number. Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposal submission, and the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest, as that term is defined in FAR 9.501, must be disclosed. This disclosure shall include a description of the action the offeror has taken, or proposes to take, to avoid, neutralize or mitigate such conflict. If the offeror believes that no such conflict exists, then the offeror shall so state in the affirmation. There is no page limit on Section III.

8.4 Volume IIl -Cost: The cost volume shall consist of a cover sheet and two (2) sections, Sections I and II. There are no limitations to the number of pages of the Cost volume.

The Cover Sheet shall identify the name and address of the offeror (include zip code); name, title, and telephone number of the offeror's business POC; recommended award instrument; place(s) and period(s) of performance; total proposed cost, separated by basic award and option(s) (if any); DUNS, TIN, CAGE CODE; date of proposal; name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administrative office (if known); and name, address, and telephone number of the offeror's cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known).

Section I is a detailed Cost Breakdown. Each phase/option of this section shall include: (1) Total program cost broken down by major cost items (direct labor, subcontracts, materials, other direct costs, overhead charges, etc.) for each major program task and for each phase. (2) An itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases. (3) A summary showing by month the total projected cost. (4) A description of cost estimating methods. (5) A schedule of the estimated cost for each major task in each phase/option.

Section II - Supporting Cost and Pricing Information. For each phase/option of the proposal provide supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates in Section I of the cost proposal. Costs for individual subcontracts having 20% or more of the value of the work must be substantiated to the same level of detail as the costs of the offeror.

8.5 Volume IV - Past Performance: The past performance volume is limited to a maximum of ten (10) pages and shall summarize the offeror’s relevant research, experience, organizational capabilities and subject matter expertise.

9.0 Evaluation Criteria: The proposals shall be evaluated based on the potential ability to meet the requirements cited in Paragraphs 3.0 and 4.0, technical objective and risk, price realism, and past performance. Criteria 9.1 and 9.2 are of equal importance and are more important than criteria 9.3 and 9.4 which are of equal importance.

9.1 Potential Ability to meet the requirements within the constraints stated in Paragraph 3.0 and its subparagraphs. The proposals shall be evaluated to determine the offeror's potential to meet the constraints identified.

9.2 Technical Objective & Risk: The proposal’s technical approach shall be evaluated on, but not limited to, clear definition of objective, soundness of technical and analytical approach, risk assessment, logical sequence of tasks, and application of resources.

9.3 Price Realism: A proposal’s price realism will be evaluated based on total price, supporting data, planned resources and task schedule.

9.4 Past Performance: The proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s quality of performance and experience in similar or related tasks/contracts with special attention to system's engineering, weapons, and risk mitigation.

10.0 Data Rights: The Government retains Government Purpose License Rights for all elements delivered under this BAA. In the technical summary section of the proposal, offerors must identify all data to be delivered under this BAA to which to the Government will not have Government Purpose License Rights and, in the case of shared data rights, offerors must define the Government’s rights. Appropriate FAR and DFAR data rights clauses shall be included in the final contract(s).

11.0 Important Information: All questions concerning this BAA shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer, Mr. Rene Thompson and Ms. Tammy Jackson to the contracting office address above or via email to Rene.Thompson@navy.mil and Tammy.Jackson@navy.mil. Registration in the DoD Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database will be a prerequisite for receiving an award. For more information on the CCR, refer to the CCR website at http://www.ccr.gov/index.cfm. All invoicing will be in accordance with NAVAIR Clause 5252.232-9513 INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS AND PAYMENT (Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) Instructions)(Oct 2006). Offerors are hereby notified that the Government may use John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU-APL) as proposal evaluator’s under this procurement. By submission of its offer, the offeror gives the Government permission to release the offeror’s proprietary information, for technical review by JHU-APL.