DRAFT_DBD_DET_BAA.docx

Broad Agency Announcement

Dual Band Decoy

Demonstration of Existing Technologies

Prepared by:

Program Executive Officer Tactical Aircraft (PEO-T) Advanced Tactical Aircraft Protection Systems Program Office

PMA272

October 2, 2018

Distribution Statement D: Distribution authorized to DoD and U.S. DoD contractors only (Critical Technology) (23 Jan 2015). Other requests shall be referred to Program Executive Officer Tactical (PEO (T)), PMA272, 47123 Buse Rd., RADM William A. Moffett Building, Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547

Distribution Statement D: Distribution authorized to DoD and U.S. DoD contractors only (Critical Technology) (15 July 2013). Other requests shall be referred to Program Executive Officer Tactical (PEO (T)), PMA234, 47123 Buse Rd., RADM William A. Moffett Building, Patuxent River, MD 20670-1547

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

Table 4: Anticipated Performance………………………………………………………………….11

Dual Band Decoy DET BAA

For Official Use Only

Dual Band Decoy (DBD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for Demonstration of Existing Technologies (DET) Background The Dual Band Decoy (DBD) program is a Department of Navy (DoN) program intended to expand the capabilities relative to the currently fielded ALE-50 Airborne Advanced Expendable Decoy (AAED) (RT-1646E/ALE) and ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD) (T-1622/ALE-55(V) used on the F/A-18E/F aircraft. The Navy’s intent is to develop and implement an expanded next generation towed radio frequency (RF) self-protection decoy capability as soon as feasibly possible.

Solicitation Purpose The goal of this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is to increase the Government's knowledge and understanding regarding existing technologies that can be applied toward the development of an expanded/wideband RF towed self-protection decoy to counter current and emerging RF threats worldwide. Of specific interest are technologies that can be leveraged and applied where significant size, weight, power and cooling constraints exist, such as those associated with the current ALE-50 and ALE-55 form factor and interface limitations, as installed on the F/A-18E/F aircraft. Proposals in response to this BAA are being solicited per FAR 35.016 and 6.102(d)(2).

The information obtained through this BAA will be used to determine the path forward to support the Navy’s current and future Dual Band Decoy requirements.

Objectives The high-level objectives of this BAA are:

Demonstrate a DBD off-board subsystem performance within the SWaP-C and interface constraints and allocations within the existing F/A-18E/F installation. The DBD should be compatible with all existing aircraft electrical and mechanical interfaces associated with the ALQ-214(V)4 Countermeasures Set, ALE-55 Electronic Frequency Converter (EFC) (CV-4334/ALE-55(V)), ALE-50 Integrated Multi-Platform Launch Controller (IMPLC) (CD-108B/ALE-50(V)), T-3F Launcher (D-71/ALE-50A(V), T-3F Magazine (MX-12196/ALE-50A(V)) and CCU-136A/A Impulse Cartridge.

Demonstrate performance in the following areas: aerodynamic storage, deployment and tow envelopes, RF bandwidth, Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP), Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) jamming effectiveness, receiver sensitivity, RF spectral purity and polarization, and RF receive and transmit antennas Field of Views (FOV’s).

Provide laboratory and flight test results, including requisite data that would support flight clearance and performance assessment on an F/A-18E/F.

Demonstrate potential to rapidly develop and produce a DBD in support of the planned IOC.

The Navy’s notional DBD off-board subsystem capabilities and performance goals are included in the DBD Goals Document and the Demonstration of Existing Technologies (DET) Statement of Objectives (SOO). The DBD Goals Document provides detailed draft goals to address capabilities compatible with the current and future DBD mission needs. Meeting these goals are not a requirement of the contract, but will be used as a guidepost in the evaluation of proposals.

DBD DET Proposal Requirements Proposal Format and Length All proposals submitted under the terms and conditions cited herein will be evaluated. Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) volumes: Volume I is the Technical Proposal and Volume II is the Cost Proposal.

The narrative material in the technical and cost volumes shall be single spaced, typed or printed in Times New Roman font with type no smaller than 12-point font. Non-narrative text may be smaller but should remain legible with a recommended size no smaller than 8-point font. Paper shall be 8-1/2 X 11 inches with a minimum margin of 1 inch around the page (excluding headers and footers). Any typed narrative included on graphics pages may not be smaller than 12-point font. Foldouts are permitted, not to exceed 11 X 17 inches, and count as one (1) page. The footer shall contain the page number of each page of the proposal and shall be continuous (i.e., numbers are not reset to 1 upon entering a new section). All proposals shall identify the following information:

Title of Proposal Name, address and Commercial And Government Entity (CAGE) code of Offeror Statement that this proposal was submitted in response to ____________________ In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during proposal preparation. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to present enough information to allow the Government to evaluate its proposal. Unsubstantiated statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can or will comply with the SOO requirements or parts thereof are considered inadequate.

The Offeror shall include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. There is no need to repeat information in more than one section. The detailed information must be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas if an overlap exists. Do not provide elaborate brochures or other presentation material beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal.

Should the Contractor require the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to support their proposed SOW, the proposal shall include the item(s) name, required availability dates, and reason for use.

The proposal’s volumes (excluding cover, title page, table of contents and tabbed dividers) page count limits are stated in the following table:

Table 1: Proposal File Formats and Page Limit

Proposal Submission All responsible sources may submit a proposal which will be considered. All volumes must be submitted on or before 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on ___________ 2018 to be considered. Offerors shall provide four (4) copies of the proposal. Each copy shall contain all requested printed material as identified in section 1.4.1 and a CD-ROM containing Volume I – Tabs A through D with copies of any graphics in JPEG format and a separate CD containing Volume II. Proposals shall be valid for 365 days. Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. Proposals shall be submitted using the address provided below. Proposals are not to be submitted by facsimile or electronically via email.

The proposals will be accessed using the Microsoft Windows 10 Operating System. Proposal information shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) file formats. Individual proposal Graphics files shall be submitted in JPEG file format. Specific file formats for each proposal item are also identified in Table 1 for each proposal item.

Commander Naval Air Systems Command ATTN: Shannon Buckalew Solicitation Number: N0001918R0086

Classified material up to Collateral SECRET submitted must be addressed as follows:

Outer Wrap:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER PMA 272

ADVANCED TACTICAL AIRCRAFT PROTECTION SYSTEMS

47123 BUSE ROAD, BLDG 2272, SUITE 535

PATUXENT RIVER, MD 20670-1547

Inner Wrap:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER PMA 272

ADVANCED TACTICAL AIRCRAFT PROTECTION SYSTEMS

ATTENTION: JOSEPH MURIAS

M/F: DUAL BAND DECOY PROGRAM

47123 BUSE ROAD, BLDG 2272, SUITE 535

PATUXENT RIVER, MD 20670-1547

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address above with prior coordination with Ms. Shannon Buckalew at (301)757-5552 or shannon.buckalew@navy.mil.

Proposal Packaging The Offerors shall package their proposals in the most efficient manner possible and shall stamp or mark on the package itself with the following: “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information -- See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 and 3.104”.

Volume I - Technical The paragraphs described below are the required minimum and should be easily identified in the proposal.

Volume I – Tab A – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Unclassified) The Offeror shall provide an Executive Summary describing the Offeror’s full DBD concept and how the Offeror plans to meet the objectives of this BAA as defined in the SOO.

Volume I – Tab B - Technical Description (classified) The Offeror shall provide a detailed technical description of the full DBD concept in the proposal. The Technical Description shall include:

A detailed description of the full DBD concept with a focus on form factor and mass properties, mechanical and electrical interfaces, and cooling requirements during captive-carry and tow flight envelope, as defined in the DBD Goals Document.

A detailed description of the Canister concept with a focus on form factor and mass properties,T-3F launcher and magazine interface, tow spool and towline configuration, brake assembly.

A detailed description of potential F/A-18E/F A-Kit changes that may be necessary to integrate the DBD.

Volume I – Tab C – technical performance (Classified) The Offeror shall provide anticipated performance of the proposed full DBD concept for each of the parameters identified in Appendix B, Table 4. Additionally, the Offeror shall describe the methodology and/or substantiation used to arrive at these anticipated performance values. The offeror’s proposal shall clearly explain how its proposed DBD capabilities compare to and address the performance goals outlined in the DBD Goals Document. The extent and the type of substantiation is at the discretion of the Offeror, but the Offeror shall provide substantiating information and documentation that fully validates the proposed technical performance of each parameter identified in Appendix B, Table 4.

In general, a test demonstration with documented performance in an operational environment is a better indicator of capability than modeling and simulation. In general, a modeling and simulation demonstration with independent testing/evaluation in a non-operational (laboratory) environment at the system-level is a better indicator of capability than other demonstration methods (e.g., analysis, etc.). The Offeror is advised that application of this guidance is not a guarantee that the Offeror's substantiating information and documentation will be deemed adequate or without risk. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror. Offerors are advised that the Government may assess risk based on the extent to which the documentation provided substantiates the Offeror’s proposed performance values.

Volume I – Tab D – STATEMENT Of WORK (Unclassified) The Offeror shall provide a detailed SOW describing how the objectives of this BAA, as stated in the SOO, will be accomplished. The Offeror may deviate from the SOO and/or provide additional tasking based upon their proposed approach. The Offeror shall clearly mark such deviations/additional tasking in the proposed SOW. The SOW shall include the following:

A description of how the Offeror will manage and execute the tasking in the SOO.

A detailed description of specific tasks to be performed and products to be delivered. Draft Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) shall be included with the SOW.

A cross reference matrix identifying the list of deliverables, applicable SOW paragraphs, CDRL numbers, and delivery dates that align with the objectives in the SOO. See Table 3: Example Deliverables Cross Reference Matrix in Appendix A.

Volume I – Tab E – Schedule (unclassified) The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), to the minimum level required to identify SETR events, in Microsoft Project. The schedule shall include all work performed to meet the requirements in the proposed SOW. Contractor funded tasks shall be included if key to understanding the logical sequencing of tasks and the resources needed for each proposed SOW requirement. The IMS shall identify which tasks are Government funded and which if any are Contractor funded.

Volume II – PRICE The offerer shall provide a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) proposal, including certified cost or pricing data, in accordance with FAR-15.403-4, associated with the SOW and schedule provided in Volume I. The certified cost or pricing data will be used by the Government contracting officer to conduct the level of analysis necessary to establish the fairness and reasonableness of pricing mandated by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402(a).The certificate shall be in accordance with the format prescribed at FAR 15.406-2. The submission of a proposal that lacks adequate cost or pricing data may result in that proposal not being selected for award. To facilitate the submission of a thorough, accurate, and complete cost or pricing data proposal, complete the checklist at DFARS 252.215-7009 and include it within the Price volume.

The proposal shall include a detailed cost breakdown to include:

Material: Provide a consolidated bill of material (CBOM) for all materials proposed which identifies the item source, quantity and price of individual material quantities and the basis for pricing (vendor quotes, invoice pricing, purchase order history, engineering estimates, etc.). Submit with the proposal copies of supporting vendor quotes, purchase orders, and purchase order history. Also provide the basis and rationale for engineering estimates. Provide unit pricing if applicable.

Subcontracts: Provide copies of proposed subcontracts and cost or price analysis of those subcontracts to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Provide a small business subcontracting plan that covers the requirements described in DFARS 219.705-4 and NMCARS 5219.705-4.

Total Cost Summary: Submit a total cost summary spreadsheet in Excel format with cell formulas for costs broken out by individual calendar year (CY), along with a summary roll-up of total costs for the entire effort. This detailed cost data shall include at least the following breakout elements, as applicable: Calendar Year, Period, Bid Category, Direct Labor Hours, Direct Labor Dollars, Fringe Dollars, Labor Overhead, Total Labor Dollars, Direct Material Dollars, Material Burden, Total Material Dollars, Total ODC Dollars, Product Cost Level, Total G&A Dollars, Total Cost Level without COM, Cost of Money, Total TCL + COM, Sell Price.

Cost Formats: Submit supplemental data to support proposal of the DBD effort using provided template, DBD_CCDR RFP Data Request.xlsx (Attachment 2). The WBS reporting elements identified are based on the MIL-STD 881C which can be pulled for reference from the Defense Cost and Resource Center (DCARC) website at http://cade.osd.mil.

Given the Government’s fiscal year funding constraints, the cost proposal shall clearly indicate phased monthly costs over the period of performance of the offeror’s proposed effort to permit the Government to determine whether the proposal meets the funding constraints detailed in Table 2, below.

Table 2: Available Government Funding by Fiscal Year

Volume III – Options for additional Effort The Offeror may propose one or more optional efforts beyond that identified in the SOO, the Offeror shall provide a detailed technical description of each optional effort in the proposal. The technical description shall address the technical goals, approach, and expected results as they relate to the additional areas of interest proposed by the Offeror, and may be proposed Classified or Unclassified at the Offeror’s discretion. Additionally, within Volume III Tab A, the Offeror shall provide a SOW and Schedule (Unclassified). Within Volume III Tab B, the Offerer shall provide a price volume (Unclassified). Within Volume III Tab C, the Offeror shall provide a Specification (Classified). For each optional effort, the Offeror shall ensure that the option is clearly identified and severable from the baseline SOO effort such that if the Government elects to not exercise the optional effort it will not adversely affect performance of the base contract. Any proposed price under this Volume will not be evaluated as part of 1.5.1.3.

Proposal Evaluation Proposals must fully address each piece of information required under section 1.4 of this BAA. Offerors are encouraged to include any additional information they deem pertinent to a thorough and complete response.

Proposals that do not address the DBD DET proposal requirements in section 1.4 may not be considered for further evaluation. The Government intends to award up to three contracts for any concept design as described in the BAA that it determines to be the most advantageous to the Government based on the quality of the proposal and availability of funding. The Government may award on initial offers. Offerors are cautioned that their initial offers should contain the Offeror’s best terms and conditions from a technical and cost standpoint. The Government may request additional information from any or all Offerors at any point during the evaluation as deemed necessary. In addition, the Government reserves the right to negotiate final scope and price with any or all Offerors if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government is under no obligation to award a contract as a result of this BAA evaluation or resulting negotiations, if applicable. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation. The Navy intends to perform a qualitative evaluation, to include a peer or scientific review, of each proposal that fully addresses each piece of information required under section 1.4 of this BAA independently against the evaluation criteria as defined below. This qualitative assessment will consider the risk associated with the Offeror’s proposed DBD solution in terms of Pros and Cons for each of the criteria in 1.5.1 and 1.5.2. For this BAA, a Pro is defined as an aspect of an Offerors proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to meeting BAA Objectives during contract performance and a Con is defined as a flaw in an Offerors proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or increases the risk of not meeting BAA Objectives.

Evaluation Criteria The Government will consider each proposal independently and weigh each against the defined evaluation criteria. The basis for selecting proposals for acceptance will be Technical Merit, Importance to Mission, and Price, of which all three are of equal importance. Initially, Price will be evaluated only to ascertain whether the proposed price is consistent with the phasing in Table 2.

Technical Merit The intent of Technical Merit is to perform an evaluation of the technical feasibility of the proposed Technology Demonstration Unit for a full DBD concept.

Evaluation of Technical Merit will include:

Extent to which descriptions of the full DBD concept appear feasible and support the program objectives, as required by Tab B.

Soundness of the technical approach to meet the requirements in section 3.0 of the DET SOO, as required by Tab D.

Ability to successfully complete the effort within the maximum period of performance. Thoroughness and clarity of planning including logical sequence of tasks and application of resources, as required by Tab E.

Importance to Mission The intent of Importance to Mission is to perform an evaluation of the technical performance of the proposed Technology Demonstration Unit for the full DBD concept against the guidepost goals provided in the DBD Goals Document.

The evaluation of importance to the mission will be based on the potential to contribute towards a full DBD technology solution to the Navy’s F/A-18E/F strike fighter mission, as required by Tab C.

PRICE

Price will be evaluated initially on whether it meets the Government’s funding profile for a single DET contract as identified in Table 2. If the Government determines it is in its best interest to enter into negotiations with an Offeror, price will be evaluated to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and realistic for the scope of work proposed.

Options for additional efforts Options for additional efforts will not be considered in the evaluation. Options for additional efforts may be discussed during negotiations if in the best interest of the Government.

Additional Proposal Information Attachment (1) is a model contract containing anticipated CLIN structure and applicable clauses to assist in proposal preparation. It is for informational purposes only.

Attachment (2) DBD_CCDR RFP Data Request.xlsx is a price file to be completed and provided as part of Volume II.

Dual Band Decoy BAA

For Official Use Only Appendix A Table 3: Example Deliverables Cross Reference Matrix

1.1

1.n

Appendix B Table 4: anticipated Performance

Decoy RF System - High Band Performance

EIRP

Transmit Antenna Patterns

Receive Antenna Patterns

Signal Gain High Band

Spurious Free Dynamic Range

Instantaneous Bandwidth

Noise Figure

Sensitivity

Selectivity

Simultaneous High Band Signal Performance

Technique Generation

High Band Capability K-2

Decoy RF System – Low Band Performance

EIRP

Transmit Antenna Patterns

Low Band Signal Gain

Low Band Transponder

Legacy Capability H-12

Legacy Capability I-32

Legacy Capability J-17

Decoy Cannister/Aerobody Performance

Safe Separation/Deployment

Tow Envelope

Towline Envelope image1.jpeg