NSWC-PHD Request for Proposal for Consortium Mangement Firm.docx

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Consortium Manager Request for Proposal (RFP) Maritime Advanced Technology Accelerator Consortium (MATAC), Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division

OTA RFP Number: N63394-25-9-0001

Background

The Other Transaction Authority (OTA), 10 U.S.C. § 4022, 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

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Port Hueneme Division (NSWC PHD) requires innovative technological solutions to address current and future security threats in the surface and maritime environment. NSWC PHD’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 small business and non-traditional defense contractors. A single Consortium Management (CM) firm will be awarded the Base OT Agreement on behalf of the Consortium. The CM will manage the operations of the Consortium, and prototype projects will be awarded to the CM as the entity authorized to represent the Consortium member or team proposing the project.

Objectives of establishing the Base OT Agreement with the CM (on behalf of the Consortium) 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; 2) facilitating proposal development; and (3) reducing the cost of prototype development.

Following selection of the Consortium by the Government, and upon execution of the Base OT Agreement, the CM 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 NSWC PHD. 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. § 4022 that permit the streamlining of potential future follow-on production awards resulting from successful prototype projects.

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1 Compliance

The CM shall provide concurrence with submitting payment requests and receiving reports using Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF), in one of the following electronic formats that WAWF accepts: Electronic Data Interchange, Secure File Transfer Protocol, or World Wide Web input. Information regarding WAWF is available on the Internet at https://wawf.eb.mil/.

The CM shall provide concurrence with obtaining and maintaining registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) throughout the duration of this Agreement.

The CM shall provide its current status of its facility clearance and level of safeguarding or demonstrate the ability to obtain a facility clearance. Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Is this needed prior to base OT award? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): We’re looking for the status only and if they don’t they can demonstrate their ability to obtain.

The CM shall provide a narrative on their current accounting system and how it will track expenditures for a project separately from other tasking.

1.2 General Information

All questions concerning this OT requirement, either technical or procedural, must be submitted via email only to the Government points of contact listed below. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted.

All proposals shall be submitted electronically to the following: Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): By when are proposals due? We should make sure the deadline is clearly stated Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): The date/time will be in SAM

Tim Scully, Agreements Specialist – timothy.c.scully2.civ@us.navy.mil Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Recommend adding titles and phone numbers would probably be helpful to add as well Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Updated to include titles however we do not plan on adding our phone numbers Mariluz Chan-Endres, Agreements Officer – mariluz.l.chan-endres.civ@us.navy.mil

The OTA Request for Proposals (RFP) number (N63394-25-9-0001) must be identified in the subject line of all questions submitted.

2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

2.1 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, as applicable.

(c) Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate sections as follows: Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): What do we mean by separate sections – just a page break between each? Or does it need to be a separate document/submission/folder, etc. Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Either interpretation will be accepted

Important: Offerors shall not include classified material in any Section.

(d) In addition to the above, offerors are highly encouraged to submit comments/recommendations concerning Attachment (2) DRAFT NSWC PHD OTA Base Agreement for Consortium Manager. The Government reserves the right to accept or reject any suggestions.

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

2.2 Section I: Factor 1 - Management of the Consortium

The Offerors shall provide the following:

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

(i) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, DUNS Number, and Business Size/Organization Type (ie: large, non-traditional, academia, etc.) of the Consortium Management Firm and each member of the Consortium.

(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 the contents of the Consortium Membership Agreement that will be executed with Consortium members, proposed organizational structure, corporate structure, and manpower. Describe in detail the methodology used to attract and maintain Consortium members.

c) Narrative description showing how the CM will: (1) process and disseminate Government problem statements, and (2) process preliminary white paper solutions. Include a process flow diagram and timeline identifying all steps and responsible parties in this process.

d) Details on the ability of the CM to attract and maintain technical expertise across the Consortium.

e) Description of other possible services proposed to be provided to the Government. Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Clarify – wouldn’t the consortium provide the services that the Govt requests/requires? what types of services are we looking for them to describe here? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Updated

2.3 Section II: Factor 2- Marketing & Recruit Strategy

Offerors shall provide a detailed marketing and recruitment planned strategy and schedule on how the CM will populate the Consortium with members that each possess significant technical capabilities to meet Government needs associated with the technology areas identified in Attachment 1. The proposal shall include an approach for how the Offeror intends to engage and incentivize participation of non-traditional contractors in the performance of this agreement. The Offeror shall include rationale that demonstrates the proposed non-traditional contractors are meaningful to the overall success of this agreement. The CM will provide a strategy on how they will market projects to the traditional and non-traditional consortium members. Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Are we just looking for their approach with regard to the nontraditional contractors, or do we also want to know about the approach to small businesses? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): In this section we’re only focusing on non-traditional contractors which could be either small or large businesses. Non-traditional contractors are the main focus of OTAs. Perhaps we can discuss further. Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Clarify what we mean by meaningful to the overall success? Do they need to perform a certain amt of work, or percentage of work, or what are we looking for the contractor to describe here? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): The verbiage is intentionally vague however one of the requirements of an OTA is to have non-traditional contractor participation. Perhaps we can discuss further.

2.4 Section III: Factor 3- Fee Rates and Structures

The Offeror shall provide complete details of proposed charges related to operation of the Consortium, including any membership fees, fee rates/amounts to the Government, fee schedules, and structures the CM will charge Consortium members. Fee rates, schedules, and structures proposed will be incorporated into the Agreement, if accepted. As mentioned, within section 1.1 compliance the Government will be invoiced by the CM through WAWF.

2.5 Section IV: Factor 4- Past Performance

The Offeror shall provide a minimum of one and up to three past performance references that reflect its experience managing a Consortium. 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 to 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). Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): This indicates they can provide anywhere from 0-3, which potentially could be none. Is this acceptable, or do we want to include a minimum? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Updated

2.6 Section V: Factor 5- Technology

The Offeror shall describe the technical expertise across the Consortium to support all of the planned technology areas (as identified in Attachment 1). Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Do we want to add any more detail here? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Attachment 1 provides the technical detail we’re looking for and this factor requests the CM assessment on the consortium and how consortium members will support these technology areas.

3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The method that will be used to select the Consortium Manager, is described in Section 3.1, "Basis for Award". Section 3.2, "Relative Importance," describes the importance of each factor in the selection process. The Government selected this evaluation framework to ensure the selection of the most qualified Consortium Manager to lead this OTA initiative. Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Evaluation factors are different from the basis of award Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Noted Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): Noted Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): These terms don’t seem to really logically apply – is it really transparent and objective? It seems entirely up to govt discretion based on the factors/methodology, especially since we don’t define what ‘best value’ means.

(b) The Government will perform an evaluation of the above 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. Comment by Maglasang-Miller, Andrea CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): How exactly are we going to evaluate the factors? We inform offerors what information to provide for each factor, the order of importance and that the basis of award is best value – but what, if any, are the anticipated guidelines for how each factor is evaluated? Comment by Scully, Timothy C CIV USN NSWC PHE DIV PHE CA (USA): The plan will to compare only however let’s discuss further.

3.2 Relative Importance

Evaluation Factors 1-5 are listed below.

Factors

Factor 1 - Management of the Consortium

Factor 2 - Marketing & Recruitment Strategy

Factor 3 - Fee Rates and Structures

Factor 4 - Past Performance

Factor 5 - Technology

Factors 1-5 are of equal importance.

3.3 DEFINITIONS

Strength is an aspect of an Offerors 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.

3.4 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment (1): Maritime Advanced Technology Accelerator Areas Attachment (2): DRAFT NSWC PHD OTA Base Agreement for Consortium Manager