NAVSEA_OTH-WS_Industry_Day_16_DEC_16.pdf

Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; distribution is unlimited.

Over-the-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS) Industry Day

16 December 2016

Disclaimer

The remarks provided today by Government Officials involved in the NAVSEA Over-the-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS) procurement should not be construed as a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the acquisition. The information shared today reflects current Government intentions and is subject to change based on a variety of circumstances. In the event that there is a conflict between any future request for proposals' terms and conditions and the information contained herein or disseminated during today's meeting, the request for proposals' terms and conditions shall govern. The request for proposals and any formal amendments are the only documents that should be relied upon in determining the Government's requirements.

The Government will provide public notice of any formal request for proposal using the Federal Business Opportunities website (https://www.fbo.gov/).

All communications regarding this procurement shall be routed through the Contracting Officer, Ms. Nicole Rooney.

Ground Rules

• All attendees must sign in and confirm your contact information at the check-in table outside the conference room

• No audio/visual recording devices of any kind are permitted in the conference room

• Questions

– No oral questions are permitted during this presentation

– Question / Feedback cards are available at the check-in table and will be collected at the end of this presentation

– Following today’s presentation, additional questions are to be submitted electronically via Email to the Contracting Officer Ms. Nicole Rooney nicole.rooney@navy.mil

– All questions and answers resulting from Industry Day and/or the draft Request For

Proposal (RFP) and draft OTH-WS Top Level Requirements Document (TLRD), to include questions and answers from the one-on-one sessions, will be posted on FedBizOpps

– The Government will respond in writing to questions submitted by posting them to the FedBizOpps

Agenda

• Opening Remarks (RDML Small) 09:00-09:30

• Over-the-Horizon Weapon System Requirement Overview 09:30-10:30

– Industry Day Objectives

– Notional OTH-WS RFP Schedule

– Contract Overview

– Deliveries

– Technical Requirements

– Proposal Structure (Section L)

– Evaluation Factors (Section M)

– Adjectival Ratings

• Summary 10:30

– Collect all questions

• One-on-ones (30 minutes in duration per Contractor) Begin at 11:00

Opening Remarks

RDML Douglas Small

Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems

Welcome

Warfighting Need for OTH Missile

• USN potential adversaries have invested in long-range, anti-ship weapons

• In order to provide LCS/FF ship platforms responsive capability to potential new threats, the USN has identified a requirement for an increased offensive capability with longer standoff range

• Longer reach is a key element of distributed lethality

• Increased offensive capability reduces defensive burden on other USN ships

• Based on these considerations the USN is considering investing in an over-the horizon surface-to-surface missile capability to increase lethality and enhance survivability for the LCS and FF Programs

Industry Day Objectives

• Increase Industry understanding of Over-the-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-WS) requirements

• Provide a forum for Industry to ask questions

• Consider Industry comments on Draft Request For Proposal

(RFP)

• Communicate program requirements, program schedule, and contemplated evaluation approach

Notional OTH-WS RFP Schedule

Event Timeline to Award assuming Discussions

Timeline to Award assuming no Discussions

Issue formal RFP January 2017 January 2017

Proposals due April 2017 April 2017

Begin discussions October 2017

Complete discussions November 2017 Requests Final Proposal Revisions December 2017

Submit Final Proposal Revisions January 2018

Award contract March 2018 November 2017

Dates listed are provided for demonstrative purposes and are subject to change.

Government is not bound to listed dates.

OTH-WS Contract Overview

• Solicitation No. N00024-17-R-5430

• Anticipated RFP Release Date: January 2017

• Competition Requirements:

– Full and Open Competition

• Anticipated Award: November 2017

• Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Cost-Only

• Contract Term: Seven Year Period of Performance (One Base Year, Plus Six One Year Options)

• Federal Service Code (FSC): 1425, Guided Missile Systems

• NAICS CODE: 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing/336415 – Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Contract Supplies / Services (Section B)

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Quantity

• Fire Control Suite (FCS)** 40*

• Launching Mechanism(s)** 102*

• Training Materials 1 Lot

• Mission Support Equipment (MSE) 1 Lot

• Encanistered Missiles (EM)** 320*

• Test Configured Encanistered Missiles

(EM-T)

15*

• Inert Operational Missiles (IOM) TBD*

• Enhanced Data Rights 1 Lot

• Conduct Training Courses TBD

• OTH-WS Improvement 1 Lot

• Improved OTH-WS Hardware TBD***

* Step Ladder Pricing Required ** LM shall be capable of storing and launching 4 EMs. The LM may consist of 1 four-celled launcher or 2, two-celled launchers. Ship sets will range from 1 to 4 LMs to provide ships the capability to fire from 4 to 16 EMs.

*** Quantity based on Offeror’s Improvement Plan

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Quantity

• System Design Agent 180,000 Total

Hours

• Installation/Integration 140,000 Total Hours

• Test Support 56,000 Total Hours

Not Separately Priced Quantity

• Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRLs) 1 Lot

Cost Quantity

• Travel and Incidental Material 1 Lot

Quantity

• Provisioned Item Order TBD

Deliveries (Section F)

Required Delivery Timeline

• Fire Control Suite (FCS) 24 months

• Launching Mechanism(s) 24 months

• Training Materials 12 months

• Mission Support Equipment (MSE) 16 months

• Encanistered Missiles (EM) 24 months; rate of

12/quarter

• Test Configured Encanistered Missiles (EM-T) 24 months

• Inert Operational Missiles (IOM) 18 months

Proposal Structure (Section L) SECTION L 2.0 - Instructions for Submission of Offers The solicitation response shall be contained in six (6) separate volumes.

SECTION L 2.1 - Proposal format and delivery

Section 2.1, Table 1: Proposal Summary Copies Required Volume Title Page Limit Paper Electronic

I Executive Summary 5 2 2

II

Technical Proposal

• Subfactor 1: Go/No-Go Performance Requirements

• Subfactor 2: EM Range

• Subfactor 3: EM Penetration

• Subfactor 4: Size, Weight, and Power Consumption

• Subfactor 5: Improved OTH-WS

75* 2 2

III Data Rights Proposal 10 2 2

IV

Management Proposal

• Element 1: Capabilities, Experience, and Facilities

• Element 2: Program Management and Systems Engineering Approach

• Element 3: Production Capability

• Element 4: Training

• Element 5: Small Business Subcontract Management Plan

40* 2 2

V Past Performance 30 2 2 VI Price Proposal None 2 2

Volume Title Volume I Executive Summary Volume II Technical Proposal Volume III Data Rights Proposal Volume IV Management Proposal Volume V Past Performance Volume VI Price Proposal

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS) and simulation and test data will not count against the page count.

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in g

Si m ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

Go/No-Go Requirements consist of Threshold Performance Requirements, Mission System Equipment (MSE), and the Fire Control Suite (FCS) Training Module

•Threshold Performance Requirements – see table •MSE requirement:

• Support OTH-WS testing

• Support system integration

• Allow U.S. Navy to input the external data necessary to perform successful system operations

•FCS Training Module requirement:

• Allow the U.S. Navy to simulate OTH-WS

Training Scenarios (e.g. operation, maintenance, etc.)

TLRD Para. Threshold Performance Requirements

3.1.1.1 FAC Range

3.1.2.1 Seeker Attribute 1

3.1.2.2 Seeker Attribute 2

3.1.3 Self-Termination

3.1.4 Missile Egress

3.2.4.1 Operator Interface

3.2.4.2 Engagement Planning

3.2.5.1 Selective Availability Anti-

Spoofing Module

3.2.5.2 Navigation Data

3.2.5.3 GPS Data

3.2.6.1 Telemetry

3.2.6.2 Flight Termination System

3.2.7.1 Missile Retention Mechanism

3.2.7.2 System Interconnects

3.3.1 Non-Developmental Item (NDI)

3.3.2 Producibility

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

TLRD Para. Performance Requirement

3.1.1.2 Capital Warship Range

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

TLRD Para. Performance Requirement

3.1.5 Missile Penetration

Proposed system’s ability to successfully defeat self-defense systems of OTH Threats as defined in the TLRD

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

TLRD Para. Performance Requirement

3.2.2.1 Above Deck Footprint

3.2.2.2 Above Deck Volume

3.2.2.3 Below Deck Volume

3.2.2.4 Weight

3.2.3 Ship Power

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

If the proposed system does not meet either (but not both) the Capital Warship Range or SWaP-C requirements as defined in the TLRD, the Offeror shall provide its approach to modifying and verifying its existing system meets all TLRD requirements, to include a description of the following:

• Specific modifications to meet all system requirements

• Proposed program management and system engineering approach

• Qualification test plans and required hardware

• Integrated master schedule illustrating all major program activities, including the date when the OTH-WS will be delivered for Navy testing

• Offeror’s ability to produce the improved OTH-WS at the production rate specified in

Section F

• Risks presented by the proposed system improvement

• Improved hardware required to support U.S. Navy conducted live fire test

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Offeror shall provide data rights assertions on their proposed system.

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

Offeror shall provide a narrative on the following:

• Element 1 – Capabilities, Experience, and Facilities

• Element 2 – Program Management and Systems Engineering Approach

• Element 3 – Production Capability

• Element 4 – Training

• Element 5 – Small Business Subcontract Management Plan

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

Offer shall provide a narrative of their past performance on contracts or subcontracts that are similar in size and complexity to the OTH-WS.

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Offer shall provide their proposed pricing.

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing how their proposed system meets each requirement.

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

The Offeror shall provide test data in a test report. The test report shall be formatted as defined in the RFP. This format requires information such as the test procedures, identification of item test/inspected, environmental conditions during the test (e.g. wind speed, temperature, etc.), and results/findings.

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

The Offeror shall provide the following:

• Monte Carlo simulations using the scenario parameters, conditions, format, and units that are defined in the RFP

• Evidence that the models and simulations have been verified and validated to independent review(s), such as, DoD, IEEE, or international standards

Evaluation Factors

N ar ra tiv e

Te st

D at a

M od el in ul at io n

PI

D s*

C os t D at a

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l Go/No-Go Requirements X X X X

EM Range X X X X

EM Penetration X X X X

SWaP-C X X

OTH-WS Improvement X

Factor 2 – Data Rights X

Factor 3 – Management X

Factor 4 – Past Performance X

Factor 5 - Price X X

Section L - Required Supporting Elements

*Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS)

The Offeror shall provide the Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS), which includes lower level specifications to include:

• Performance and design requirements for each element

• Performance requirements related to manning, operating, maintaining, and logistically supporting each item to the extent these requirements define or constrain the design of each element

In making its best value determination, the Government will consider the following non-price factors:

Evaluation Factors (Section M)

• Factor 1 – Technical

• Subfactor 1: Go/No-Go Requirements

• Subfactor 2: EM Range

• Subfactor 3: EM Penetration

• Subfactor 4: Size, Weight, and Power Consumption

• Subfactor 5: Improved OTH-WS

– Sub-Factor Relative Importance: SF 1 > SF 2 = SF 3 = SF 4 > SF 5

• Factor 2 – Data Rights

• Factor 3 – Management

• Element 1 – Capabilities, Experience, and Facilities

• Element 2 – Program Management and Systems Engineering Approach

• Element 3– Production Capability

• Element 4 – Training

• Element 5 – Small Business Subcontract Management Plan

• Factor 4 – Past Performance

• Factor 5 – Total Evaluated Price

• Non-Price factors when combined are approximately equal to Price.

D ecreasing Factor Im portance

Section M – Evaluation Criteria

F1 Technical

SF1 Go/No-Go Requirements

A/U • Proposal meets Threshold Performance Requirements

• Proposal meets MSE and FCS Training Module

SF2 EM Range Adj • Evaluation of demonstrated range – longer range will be evaluated more favorably

• A proposed system’s maximum range that is below the Capital Warship Range as defined in the

TLRD minus 60 NM will be deemed unacceptable

SF3 EM Penetration Adj • Evaluation of the system’s combined techniques and system attributes to determine the likelihood of a successful engagement against FAC and Capital Warship’s equipped with self-defense systems as defined in the TLRD

SF4 SWaP-C Adj • Evaluation of the number of missiles within the SWaP-C – more missiles within the SWaP-C will be evaluated more favorably

• A proposed system that meets SWaP-C with fewer than 2 missiles will be deemed unacceptable

SF5 Improved OTH-WS Adj • Evaluation of demonstrated ability of system improvement to meet either Capital Warship range or SWaP-C, but not both

• System that meets both Capital Warship range and SWaP-C will be rated as ‘N/A,’ and will be viewed more favorably in the best value tradeoff

F2 Data Rights Adj • Evaluation of the risk associated with the Government’s inability to obtain Government Purpose Rights

F3 Management Adj • Demonstrated ability to meet the Management requirements

F4 Past Performance A/U • Likelihood of successful performance

Adjectival Ratings

Factor 1, Subfactor 1 Go/No-Go Requirements Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

From Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016

Adjectival Ratings

F1 SF 2 EM Range, F1 SF 3 EM Penetration, F1 SF 4 SWaP-C, F1 SF 5 OTH-WS Improvement, F2 Data Rights, F3 Management

Color Rating Definition Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Adjectival Ratings

Technical Risk Ratings Risk Definition Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Adjectival Ratings

Factor 4 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Evaluation

Determination Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Adjectival Ratings

From Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016

Definitions of General Terms in Adjectival Rating Standards:

i. Strengths – an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

ii. Weaknesses – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001).

iii. Significant Weakness – a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001).

iv. Deficiency - a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (Per FAR part 15.001).

End of Presentation

• Questions

– No oral questions are permitted during this presentation

– Question / Feedback cards are available at the check-in table and will be collected at the end of this presentation

– Following today’s presentation, additional questions are to be submitted electronically via

Email to the Contracting Officer Ms. Nicole Rooney nicole.rooney@navy.mil

– All questions and answers resulting from Industry Day and/or the draft Request For Proposal

(RFP) and draft OTH-WS Top Level Requirements Document (TLRD), to include questions and answers from the one-on-one sessions, will be posted on FedBizOpps