Final_DBD_DET_BAA_v1.docx

Broad Agency Announcement

Dual Band Decoy

Demonstration of Existing Technologies N00019-18-R-0086

Prepared by:

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

PMA272

November 8, 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………………………………………………………………….12

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 (SWaP-C) 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 develop and produce a DBD within a 27 month period of performance.

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) (Attachment 3). The DBD Goals Document provides detailed performance 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 PriceCost Proposal. and Volume III includes any Additional Efforts (Optional) Proposal(s).

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 N00019-18-R-0086 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 sufficiently detailed information to enable the Government to fully 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 proposed 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.

The proposal’s shall comply with the page count limits as stated in Table 1 below. The cover page, title page, table of contents, and tabbed dividers do not count against page limits.

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 December 7, 2018 to be considered. Offerors shall provide four (4) copies of the proposal. Each copy shall contain all required 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 and a separate CD containing Volume III (if required). Proposals shall be valid for 365 days; this statement shall be included as Part of Volume I, Tab A. 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 Offeror shall package its proposal in the most efficient manner possible per the requirements in 1.4.2 above 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 Technical Volume shall, at a minimum, fully address each of the paragraphs described below. Each section of the proposal shall be easily identified in the proposal and each tab shall be submitted at the classification level identified in parentheses below.

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 requirements defined in the SOO. A full DBD concept addresses at least all of the technical description requirements as identified in Volume I Tab B and addresses all of the technical performance requirements as identified in Volume I Tab C.

Should the Contractor require the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to support their proposed SOW, the proposal shall identify the item(s) name, required availability dates, and reason for use as Part of Volume I, Tab A.

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, environmental 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, and environmental requirements as defined in the DBD Goals Document.

A detailed description of potential F/A-18E/F changes that may be necessary to integrate the offeror’s full DBD concept. As outlined in the DBD Goals Document, 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. As such, F/A-18E/F hardware changes are not desired.

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 provide substantiation used to arrive at these anticipated performance values. The offeror’s proposal shall clearly explain how its proposed DBD performance 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 Statement of Work (SOW) describing how the requirements in the SOO will be accomplished. The Offeror may deviate from the SOO and/or provide additional tasking based upon its 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 articles to be tested (to include the Test Article/TDU Configurations and quantities). Draft Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) (Attachment 4) 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 and pricing data, in accordance with FAR-15.403-4, associated with the SOW and schedule provided in Volume I. The certified cost andor 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 andor pricing data may result in that proposal not being selected for award. To facilitate the submission of a thorough, accurate, and complete cost andor pricing data proposal, the Offeror shall 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

Proposal Evaluation Proposals must fully address all information required under section 1.4 of this BAA. Offerors are encouraged to include all supporting 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 a full DBD concept 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; therefore,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. Negotiations may, but are not guaranteed to, lead to a contract award.

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 1.5.1.1 and 1.5.1.2.

For this BAA, the following definitions apply:

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.

A Con is defined as a flaw in an Offerors proposal that increases the risk of not meeting BAA Objectives during contract performance.

Evaluation Criteria The Government will consider each proposal independently and weigh each against the evaluation criteria defined herein. The basis for selecting a proposal or 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.

The evaluation will classify each proposal into one of the following categories:

Category I - Proposal demonstrates Technical Merit and Importance to Mission, and the proposed Price is consistent with the phasing in Table 2. Any risk identified in the offeror’s proposal is low. Proposals in Category I will generally be recommended for acceptance subject to the availability of funds. Category I proposals are typically displaced only by other Category I proposals.

Category II – Proposal demonstrates Technical Merit and Importance to Mission, and the proposed Price is consistent with the phasing in Table 2. Risk identified in the offeror’s proposal is acceptable. Proposal may require additional development and/or substantiation. Category II proposals may be recommended for acceptance, but are of a lower priority than Category I proposals.

Category III - Proposal does not demonstrate Technical Merit and/or Importance to Mission, and/or its proposed Price is inconsistent with the phasing in Table 2. Risk identified in the offeror’s proposal is unacceptable. Category III proposals will generally not be recommended for acceptance.

Technical Merit The intent of Technical Merit is to determine 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 are substantiated as required by Volume I, Tab B.

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

Ability to successfully complete the effort within the maximum period of performance of 27 months. Although the maximum period of performance is 27 months, the Government desires an accelerated schedule. Thoroughness and clarity of planning including logical sequence of tasks and application of resources, as required by Volume I, Tab E.

Importance to Mission The intent of Importance to Mission is to determine the technical performance of the proposed Technology Demonstration Unit for the full DBD concept against the performance 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 mission, as required by Volume I, Tab C.

PRICE

Price will be evaluated initially on whether it is consistent with 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.

ATTACHMENTS

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 that the Offeror shall complete and provide as part of Volume II.

Attachment (3) is the DBD DET SOO (Included in the Technical Library).

Attachment (4) includes the DBD DET Model CDRLs (Included in the Technical Library).

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

Transmit-to-Receive Antenna Isolation

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

Simultaneous Signal Performance

Legacy Capability

ATSS

Legacy Capability LRTS

Legacy Capability Live 1

Decoy Cannister/Aerobody Performance

Safe Separation/Deployment

Tow Envelope

Towline Performance

F/A-18 E/F Integration Testing image1.jpeg