NAWCAD_N00421-19-9-0001_Consortium_Mgmt_Solicitation_14Dec18.pdf

Background

The Other Transaction Authority (OTA), 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, allows the Department of Defense (DoD) to “carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components or materials proposed to be carried out by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces.” Constant innovation and rapid technology advances are occurring throughout the world. Partnerships will be used to leverage these approaches and increase flexibility and agility, reduce cost, improve technology and capability insertion, and decrease program development cycles. The OTA offers an alternative to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)‐based acquisitions, allowing for access to participation by non-traditional defense contractors with innovative solutions that may not normally desire to participate in government procurement.

Requirement The Naval Air Warfare Centers require innovative technological solutions to address current and future technology needs in support of Naval aviation. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division’s (NAWCAD) intent is to competitively award an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement with a nonprofit Consortium Management Company. A Consortium Management Company is a legal entity who manages a consortium whose members are comprised of both traditional and non-traditional defense contractors that share a common focus area. The Consortium Management Company will be responsible for building an aviation consortium to aid in the needs of the NAWCs and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR).

Objectives of establishing the Base OT Agreement include: 1) minimizing barriers to entry for small businesses and non-traditional vendors to work with the Government; 2) identifying and realizing teaming opportunities among entities to promote integrated research and prototyping efficiencies, and 3) reducing the cost and time for prototype development.

Following selection of a Consortium Management Company by NAWCAD, and upon execution of the Base OT Agreement, the Consortium Management Company will be responsible for building an aviation consortium by attracting, retaining, and mentoring members to prepare them to compete for forthcoming prototype projects that will be solicited by the NAWCs and NAVAIR. See Attachment (1) for list of technology areas. The Consortium Management Company will also be expected to aid in building teaming arrangements among Consortium members, as needed, to best meet the requirements of individual projects.

Instructions to Offerors

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1 General Information

All questions concerning this OT requirement, either technical or procedural, must be submitted via email to Candice Anderson at candice.l.anderson@navy.mil and Elisabeth Keith at elisabeth.keith@navy.mil. The term of the OTA is planned as a five (5) year agreement from the date of award.

Proposal Submissions: Responses shall be submitted via email only to the Agreements Officer, Candice Anderson, at candice.l.anderson@navy.mil and the Agreements Specialist, Elisabeth Keith, at elisabeth.keith@navy.mil no later than Jan 31, 2019 2:00PM EST. Any proposals received after this date and time will not be evaluated.

1.2 Proposal Format and Content

1.2.1 Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared on letter size (8 ½ x 11 inch), in no smaller than 10 point Times New Roman font, single-spaced with no less than a one-inch margin on all sides with a maximum of 25 pages. Proposals and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office 2016 or Adobe. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No pictures or hyperlinks are allowed.

(b) Proposals shall be valid for a minimum of 180 days after submission unless the Offeror formally withdraws the proposal.

(c) Offerors SHALL NOT include classified material in the proposal.

1.2.2 Proposal Content

Proposals shall consist of four sections and provide the following:

Section 1 - Consortium Management Structure:

a. Narrative describing the Consortium Management Company’s organizational structure.

b. Narrative describing how the Consortium Management Company intends to manage the aviation consortium, including its structure, governance and discussion on how the management company intends to perform administrative functions (i.e. legal, finance and security), the proposed level of interaction/oversight with its consortia members, and the proposed interaction/relationship with the NAWCs. Include any other relevant documents, such as draft Articles of Collaboration/By-Laws and the draft Consortia

Member Agreement (CMA), with any additional narrative description that may be necessary to describe their importance or function.

c. Narrative describing how the Consortium Management Company plans to flow down and enforce project requirements, plans to oversee performance of the members on specific projects, and plans for rectifying unacceptable performance by a member on a specific project. If the intent of the Consortium Management Company is to have the NAWCs and/or NAVAIR be responsible for oversight of performance, this should be clearly stated.

d. Narrative describing the Consortium Management Company’s process for maximizing competition and teaming among the consortia members.

e. Narrative describing how the Consortium Management Company anticipates leveraging 3rd party financing opportunities.

f. Evidence that the Consortium Management Company’s current Facility Clearance is SECRET or higher. Consortium Management Companies who do not have the required SECRET facility clearance at time of proposal submission will not be considered for award. Also provide a description of the Consortium Management Company’s ability to help members obtain a Facility Clearance.

Section 2 – Recruitment Plan:

a. Detailed plan and schedule showing how the Consortium Management Company will populate the consortium with members possessing technical capabilities to meet Government needs associated with the Technology Areas outlined in Attachment (1).

b. Describe your marketing and outreach plans to continuously attract innovative nontraditional entities for membership in the consortium.

Section 3 - Fee Structure:

Narrative describing the proposed fee structure for the Consortium Management Company, including project fees to the Government, all consortium membership fees (large, small, academic institutions, etc.), consortium assessment/post award fees and consortium licensing and royalty fees.

Section 4 - Consortium Management Experience:

Narrative detailing the Consortium Management Company’s experience in establishing, growing and managing consortia and administering OTAs for prototype projects. Include a discussion of any lessons learned, and how those lessons learned might be applied to the current requirement.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will evaluate proposals using the following criteria:

2.1 Consortium Management Structure: The Government will evaluate the responses required in order to determine the extent to which the proposed organizational structure, management structure, and procedures will maximize NAWCAD’s ability to place OT prototype projects expeditiously, maximize competition and teaming, ensure timely execution of prototype projects, and ensure accountability and adequate performance of consortium members on specific projects.

2.2 Recruitment Plan: The Government will evaluate the Consortium Management Company’s recruitment plan and schedule for populating and maintaining a consortium with the technical capabilities encompassing all identified Technology Areas.

2.3 Fee Structure: The Government will evaluate the fee structure to determine whether it reflects an understanding of the work involved, how it might affect the use of the OTA, and the extent to which it will help ensure that a viable consortium member base can be maintained.

2.4 Consortium Management Experience: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s experience in establishing, growing and managing consortia and administering OTAs.

The Government will perform an evaluation of the above evaluation factors and assign strengths and weaknesses. Then each of the four factors will be given a confidence rating (Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence) based on those strengths and weaknesses. The Government will then compare the various strengths, weaknesses, and confidence ratings among proposals to select the Offeror that represents the best overall value to the Government.

3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to make a single award to a Consortium Management Company.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria identified.

(b) The Government reserves the right to contact none, one, some, or all Offerors prior to award.

3.2 Relative Importance

The Consortium Management Structure, Recruitment Plan, Fee Structure, and Consortium Management Experience factors are equally important.

4.0 DEFINITIONS

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during agreement performance.

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful agreement performance.

Confidence is the evaluation of the likelihood the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements.

Substantial confidence - Based on the Offeror’s proposal, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory confidence - Based on the Offeror’s proposal, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited confidence - Based on the Offeror’s proposal, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No confidence - Based on the Offeror’s proposal, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

ATTACHMENTS:

(1) Technology Areas