Newport_NUWC_Request_for_Consortium_Agreement.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 with commercial industry, the civil maritime sector, and others 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

NUWC requires innovative technological solutions to address current and future security threats in the undersea and maritime environment. NUWC’s intent is to competitively establish an Other Transaction (OT) Agreement with a single Consortium, a legal entity whose members will be comprised of both traditional and non-traditional defense contractors. As part of the selection of the single Consortium, the Navy will also evaluate the Consortium Manager (CM) proposed to run the operations of the Consortium based on its Consortium Management Agreement. The Consortium Management Firm will sign the Base OT Agreement on behalf of the Consortium.

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 and to identify and realize teaming opportunities among entities to promote integrated research and prototyping efficiencies, and 2) reducing the cost of prototype development.

Following selection of the consortium and its CM by the Navy, and upon execution of the Base OT Agreement, the Consortium will be responsible for further building membership by attracting, retaining, and mentoring members to prepare them to compete for forthcoming prototype projects that will be solicited by the Navy. The CM will also be expected to aid in building teaming arrangements among Consortium members, as needed, to best meet the requirements of individual projects.

Competing the Base OT Agreement, as well as competing each of the ensuing prototype projects among the consortium membership, will also satisfy the requirements of the authority granted in 10 U.S.C. § 2371b that permit the streamlining of potential future follow-on production awards resulting from successful prototype 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. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted. All proposals shall be submitted electronically to the following:

Name: Christopher Kenney Email: Christopher.J.Kenney@navy.mil

1.2 Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point Times New Roman font, single-spaced with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. 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 and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office 2010 or Adobe Acrobat.

(c) Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Maximum

Number of Pages

I Technology 10 II Engagement of Non-traditional Contractors 5 III Management of the Consortium 5 IV Facilities 1 V Past Performance and Experience with

Undersea Innovation

Important: Offerors shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(d) Proposals shall be considered valid for 180 days after submission unless the Offeror formally withdraws.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

In the response, Offerors shall address the below factors:

2.1 Technology

Offerors shall provide information on technical expertise across the Consortium, specifically addressing each area in the Technology Areas clause.

2.2 Engagement of Non-traditional Contractors

Offerors shall provide an approach for how the Offeror intends to engage non-traditional contractors in the performance of this agreement. The Offeror shall include in this approach rationale that demonstrates the proposed non-traditional contractors are meaningful to the overall success of this agreement.

2.3 Management of the Consortium

The Offeror shall provide the following:

a) The CM proposed to perform Consortium Management duties under this agreement, including the following information:

(i) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, Cage Code, DUNS Number, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the Consortium Management Firm;

(ii) Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(iii) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal, and;

(iv) The status and level of the current Facility Clearance held by the Consortium Management Firm

b) Details on how the CM will manage the Consortium, including details on the contents of the Consortium Management Agreement that will be executed with Consortium members and Articles of Collaboration

c) Details on the ability of the Consortium to attract and maintain technical expertise across the Consortium

d) Detail all fee rates and structures the Consortium will charge Consortium members and the Government. Fee rates and structures proposed will be incorporated into the Agreement, if accepted.

2.4 Facilities

The Offeror shall provide a description of the facilities to be used in completion of the work under this Agreement across the Consortium. This approach shall provide details of specific facilities that are directly relevant to the areas listed in the Technology Areas clause of the OT Agreement.

2.5 Past Performance and Experience with Undersea Innovation

Offerors shall provide up to five past performance references that reflect recent, relevant experience across the Consortium performed within the last five years of proposal submittal that demonstrates past performance and experience with the areas in the Technology Areas clause.

Offerors shall also provide up to three past performance references for the proposed Consortium Management Firm that reflect its experience managing Consortia. Include a discussion on how the references provided are relevant to this requirement and any relevant points of contact. If the past performance reference is related a Government procurement, include contract/task order/agreement number, contract/task order/agreement type, program name, total contract/task order/agreement cost, short description of work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers for the Procuring Contract Officer (PCO)/Agreements Officer (AO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)/Agreements Officer Representative (AOR), and Program Manager (PM).

Proposal Evaluation

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 General Information

(a) The Government intends to make a single award to a Consortium. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government.

(b) The Government reserves the right to contact one, some, or all Offerors prior to award.

(c) The Government will perform an evaluation of the below evaluation factors and assign strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Government will then compare the various strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies among proposals to select the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table indicates all factors that will be considered for award in descending order of importance:

FACTORS

Technology Engagement of Non-traditional Contractors Management of the Consortium Facilities Past Performance and Experience with Undersea Innovation

2.0 EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate offers for each of the following factors.

2.1 Technology

The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each Offeror’s expertise in the areas in the Technology Areas clause.

2.2 Engagement of Non-traditional Contractors

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to engaging non-traditional contractors to assess whether the approach sufficiently engages non-traditional contractors in the performance of prototype projects.

2.3 Management of the Consortium

The Government will evaluate Offerors on the ability of the proposed CM to successfully manage the Consortium, whether the Consortium Agreement will lead to successful performance under the Agreement, the ability of the Consortium to attract and maintain technical expertise across the Consortium, and the proposed fee rates and structures.

2.4 Facilities

The Government will evaluate proposals to assess the capability of each Offeror’s facilities to contribute to prototype projects.

2.5 Past Performance and Experience with Undersea Innovation

The Government will evaluate past performance and experience to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to successfully perform prototype projects based on a demonstrated record of relevant performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), if available. The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

3.0 DEFINITIONS

Deficiency is defined as 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 agreement performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength is 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 agreement performance.

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

Requirement