White_Paper_Synopsis.docx

WHITE PAPER REQUEST, PREPARATION, AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In order to allow Offerors to maximize an effective full and open competition and provide Offerors the best opportunity to submit a successful proposal for the Rapid Technology Insertion (RTI) effort, the Navy Review Team will accept and review White Papers on Offeror project concepts. This will allow the Government to provide initial feedback on Offeror technology and solutions without the greater effort of Offeror preparation and Government evaluation of full proposals. Offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of this part of the RTI procurement process.

Offerors will be eligible to submit proposals regardless of whether a White Paper is submitted. Offerors are still eligible to submit proposals regardless of the Government review comments provided on the Offeror’s White Papers. White papers shall focus on no more than one project topic and must be submitted separately. There is no limit on the number of White Papers an Offeror may submit in response to this RFP. The Government will not provide any direct reimbursement for responses to this announcement.

1. White Papers

Submissions that build on current or previous DoD work are encouraged, including technology development funded by Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), its field activities, its affiliated Program Executive Officers (PEOs) under other programs, and allied nation naval projects. However, if Offerors are enhancing work performed under other DoD projects, including other System Commands (SYSCOMS) their White Papers must clearly identify the point of departure between the existing work and the proposed work, the specific elements of the existing work that will be brought forward, and the new work being proposed in response to this RFP.

2. White Paper Format Pages submitted in excess of the White Paper page limit will not be read or reviewed.

· Length – Twelve (12) pages (each side of a double sided page counts when printed)

· Paper Size – 8.5 x 11 inch paper

· Margins – 1 inch (including any Headers and Footers with administrative information)

· Header- Times New Roman, 12 point

· Footer- Times New Roman, 12 point

· Spacing – single-spaced

· Font – Times New Roman, 12 point

NOTE:

1) Do not send hardcopies of White Papers (including facsimiles) as only electronic submissions will be accepted and reviewed (See para 4);

2) Do not attach ZIP files;

3) Do not lock or encrypt the file you upload, or attach password-protected files;

4) Perform a virus check before uploading the White Paper file (If organization computers detect a virus, it may be grounds for rejection of the White Paper);

5) The White Paper should be a single file, including Gantt or other work plan charts and attachments/enclosures;

6) Send each White Paper separately;

7) A single Offeror may submit multiple White Papers; and

8) Pages submitted in excess of the White Paper page limit will not be read or reviewed.

3. White Paper Content White Papers shall be UNCLASSIFIED and be no more than twelve (12) pages. All submitted pages count toward the page count. Offerors shall submit a separate White Paper for each RTI topic. Batch grouping and submission of White Papers is not permitted and will preclude consideration.

White Papers shall include the following information:

a) Cover Page. The cover page should include the white paper title, technical and administrative points of contact along with e-mail address, telephone, and facsimile numbers.

b) Executive Overview. The executive overview of the white paper should explain how it addressed a topic area, synopsis of the technical approach, and key aspects of the Offeror’s experience, technical maturity of the approach, capabilities and past performance in this area.

c) Technology Maturity: Proposals shall provide all of the following in order to be evaluated on a "Go / No-Go" basis:

· Show evidence such as measurements, test results, or evidence of working component prototype(s) or mature system(s) in a relevant environment;

· Show evidence that the technology maturity for the proposed RTI project is sufficient to support successful assessment, integration, and production within two years;

· Identify the essential technologies and evidence of their maturity, previous use, and any planned testing to mitigate risks, if needed;

· Identify evidence of previous testing, shipboard installation, production/fielding, or naval system integration for similar technology or essential technology elements.

d) Technical Approach. Provide an accurate and complete technical description that explains how the technology meets the Government’s requirements and responds to the goals of the RTI process. Discuss the proposed technology improvement(s), the work to be performed, technical approach for each project phase as described in SOW Addendum 1 Rapid Technology Insertion Overview, including the significant challenges, technical risks, and cost reductions achieved (if any). Technical description should address both the Primary and Secondary engineering measurement performance improvements and/or changes. Discuss current performance levels, and how the performance levels will change as a result of the project. Provide actual data, modeling or test results to substantiate and backup performance claims, and explain how data will be collected during and after the project to prove performance. Discuss the engineering work needed to bring the product to production and fleet deployment status, with emphasis on the performance data that exists, what testing is necessary and how the success will be measured, and how the project work scope or previous testing ensures that the product performance will be reliable and maintainable. Describe compatibility with the ship and mission module interfaces, as defined by the applicable ICDs, including size, weight, and power impacts, how they are maintained, and what impacts result from the product or technology. Discuss past performance of your company or team with this technology and detail previous products or accomplishments in this or closely related projects.

e) Life Cycle: Discuss the methods of sustaining and supporting the technology when in operational use. Provide real or estimated reliability and availability performance. Discuss the impacts to ship’s manning, and the training requirements to operate and maintain the technology. Discuss any special manufacturing processes, facilities, or equipment needed to produce the technology. Discuss the plan for manufacture of the product or maintenance of the software, your previous manufacturing experience for similar products, and facilities or special equipment if needed. Discuss the sustained logistics support for the product or technology, how and where it would be repaired, levels of repair and maintenance required, approach for training, and stocking spare parts.

f) Schedule. Provide a summary schedule for the project, including engineering work, any design reviews, testing, and deliveries, consistent with the planned RTI project phasing.

4. Submission of White Papers All White Papers submitted in response to this synopsis shall be sent via email to Melissa Ardis at melissa.ardis@navy.mil by 2pm EST on 30 June 2014.

5. White Paper Review and Notification The Government’s review of White Papers submitted in response to this Synopsis will be based on the factors noted below as well as availability of funding. The major purpose of the review will be to determine the merit of the technical approach of each White Paper and provide feedback to the Offeror.

The Government will identify which White Papers are not germane to Technical Topics identified in the SOW Addendum. If a White Paper is not germane to the Technical Topic identified in the SOW Addendum or does not meet the minimum Technology Maturity criteria identified in 3(c) above, then the offeror shall be so notified and no further evaluation comments will be provided. If the White Papers are germane to the Technical Topic, then the review will be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Technology Maturity Proposals will be rated on this criteria on a "Go / No-Go" basis, and will be considered acceptable for further review if they meet all the criteria requested in Section 3(c) above.

Factor 2: Technical Approach:

Provides benefit to the LCS in resolving technical challenges as defined by improved technical performance in the Primary Engineering Measurement Parameter (Primary EMP) as noted for the topic; Relative impact, or benefits, in the performance criteria of the Secondary Engineering Measurement Parameter (Secondary EMPs) as noted for the topic area. Meets Necessary Conditions, including compatibility with Interface Control Drawings (ICDs) and Interface Design Specifications (IDS). For MM projects, ability of the technology to be implemented on the LCS without requiring changes to the Ship/Mission Module ICD or IDS. For Ship projects, proposed or actual compatibility with general Naval Ship standards of design and construction.

Factor 3: Life Cycle:

Approach is developed and sound, providing for highly supported operations and fielding.

Factor 4: Schedule Ability to provide a rapid project transition through Option 2 completion in less than 24 months;

Factor 5: Scope:

Capability or scope of the response is within the scope of the RTI Topic;

6. Review Criteria

Factor 1 is the most important factor, and White Papers not passing Factor 1 will not be evaluated further. Factors 2 to 3 are both of equal importance. Factors 1, 4, and 5 will be evaluated using a binary (Yes/No) criteria. Factors 2 and 3, Technical Merit and Life Cycle, will be evaluated using adjectival rating as follows:

Outstanding: White Paper meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good: White Paper meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. White Paper contains strengths, which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable: White Paper meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: White Paper does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The White Paper has one or more weaknesses, not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: White Paper does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

NOTE - The Government intends to use Government personnel from the Naval Sea Systems Command, its field activities, and affiliated PEOs in the evaluation of White Papers. No contractors will be used in the evaluation of White Papers. A synopsis will be published on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site announcing the release of the formal RFP.

The Government will advise whether or not all or part of a White Paper has merit for a full proposal. However, any such feedback in no way obligates the Government to award a contract or identifies that a follow-on proposal will be rated highly or selected for an award, nor does a negative review preclude submission of a proposal by the Offeror during the solicitation phase.

7. Attached Reference Documents

a) DRAFT Section B

b) DRAFT Statement of Work, PEO LCS Rapid Technology Insertion.

c) DRAFT SOW Addendum 1, Rapid Technology Insertion Process Description.

d) DRAFT SOW Addendum 2, ASW Mission Package Weight Reduction Topic Description

e) DRAFT DD-1423, Contract Data Requirements List

f) Government Furnished Information (GFI) package (Available upon request IAW FBO Synopsis)