OBAA Topic Presolicitation (THOR).pdf

Topic Solicitation No. 9: 70RWMD21R0000000X DRAFT CWMD OBAA

1 | P a g e

Attachment A Topic Solicitation Information

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) COUNTERING WEAPONS

OF MASS DESTRUCTION OPEN BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (CWMD

OBAA) TOPIC SOLICITATION NO. 9: 70RWMD21R0000000X

1. Topic Solicitation Number: Topic Solicitation No. 9: 70RWMD21R0000000X

2. beta.SAM.gov Solicitation Number: 70RWMD21R0000000x for Topic Solicitation 9 and, beta.SAM.gov Solicitation Number: 70RDND19R00000003 for OBAA

3. Topic Solicitation No. 9: 70RWMD21R0000000X

Event Dates/Time (Local Eastern Time)

• Pre-solicitation – March 30, 2021

• Deadline for Submission of Pre-solicitation Feedback and Suggestions– April 5, 2021, 3:00

PM

• Notification to Submit Proposals – April 14, 2021

• Deadline for Submission of Pitch Paper Questions – April 21, 2021, 3:00 PM

• Pitch Paper Submission Deadline – May 14, 2021, 3:00 PM

• Pitch Paper Notifications – May 24, 2021

• Deadline for Submission of Proposal Questions – May 31, 2021, 3:00 PM

• Proposal Due Date – June 14, 2021, 3:00 PM

• Notification of Selection/Non-Selection of Proposals– June 28, 2021

• Award date (estimated) – August 2, 2021

There will be no exceptions to the time and date on which responses are due, unless determined otherwise by the Government. Proposals received after the designated closing date/time will not be considered.

Industry feedback on this pre-solicitation is requested by 5 April. Please provide any suggestions that would make it possible for this project to be more effective in quickly transitioning to industry. Please also provide any suggestions/feedback regarding information contained in the pre-solicitation. If possible, please also provide contact information. Industry input will be considered in the April 14 posting.

Note: This Topic Solicitation will be conducted in accordance with the Two phased Evaluation Process as described under Section 1.6 of the OBAA. This Topic Solicitation is being issued in accordance with the notice and solicitation requirements set forth in FAR 5 for this FAR 35 Research and Development solicitation. The OBAA Solicitation 70RDND19R00000003 was posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO.gov) on April 17, 2019. Effective November 12, 2019, FBO.gov is retired, and the OBAA Solicitation 70RDND19R00000003 can now be found on https://beta.sam.gov.

https://beta.sam.gov/

2 | P a g e

This evaluation process will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of both pitch papers and proposals. Under this evaluation, Phase 1 of the evaluation process will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of the pitch papers from potential performers.

Entries in the various sections of the pitch papers should be concise and conform to the specified formatting and word count limitations as indicated in this Topic Solicitation.

Repetition of presentation materials should be avoided or minimized as much as possible.

No formal transmittal letter is required for the Phase 1 responses. Once the pitch paper peer/scientific review process has been completed, potential Offerors will be notified in writing, typically via e-mail, whether the potential Offeror is “encouraged” or “not encouraged” to submit a full proposal.

A down-selection process will then be conducted by DHS. Offerors who submitted Phase 1 pitch papers and were encouraged to submit proposals will be given the opportunity to participate in Phase 2. Phase 2 will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of a proposal limited to 20 pages, excluding the cover sheet, Volume II, and Volume III. Once the proposal peer/scientific review process has been completed, Offerors will be notified in writing, typically via e-mail, that its proposal has either been selected, selected but not funded, or not selected for award. Potential Offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the pitch paper process, but they are not required to submit a pitch paper in advance of a proposal.

Offerors not selected for an award may request feedback regarding the peer/scientific review findings of the submitted proposal. A written request to the Contracting Officer must be received within 3 calendar days of notification of non-selection.

4. Topic Solicitation Research & Development Focus Areas:

CWMD.05 – Nuclear Sensing: Technologies to provide cross-cutting improvements to nuclear threat detection through dramatically improved performance and/or reduced costs when compared to Commercial off the Shelf.

4.1. Research Opportunity Description

Title: Thallium Bromide Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems Objective Resolution (THOR)

Objective: The goal of the THOR Program is to increase the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for thallium bromide (TlBr) as a detection material for radio isotope identification devices (RIID). It is not a procurement program but could possibly provide technology for future procurements.

Technology Readiness Level at Beginning: TRL 4-5 Technology Readiness Level at Conclusion: TRL 7 Technology Readiness Level definitions can be found in Attachment B of this Topic Solicitation.

3 | P a g e

Background

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is committed to using cutting-edge technologies and scientific talent in its mission to make America safer. In December 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Office by consolidating the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and a majority of the Office of Health Affairs (OHA). The mission of CWMD is to counter attempts by terrorists or other threat actors to carry out an attack against the United States or its interests using a weapon of mass destruction. The DHS CWMD Research and Development (R&D) appropriation provides resources necessary to identify, explore, and demonstrate new technologies and capabilities that will help enable the DHS and stakeholders to prevent, protect against, respond to, and mitigate nuclear, chemical, radiological, and biological threats and incidents.

Priority needs of DHS’s operational components drive CWMD's R&D investments. CWMD looks for the following types of solutions within the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear mission space:

• Over the horizon, future innovations that will transform the way homeland security operators accomplish their missions.

• Near-term capabilities that will solve current operational challenges and meet the Department's R&D needs.

• New applications of technologies to respond to emerging threats to the homeland.

As the threat of terrorism evolves, DHS intends to assess a wide spectrum of potential technologies that can enhance its capabilities.

Description

CWMD is striving to work with industry in a joint R&D effort, the THOR Program, to increase the TRL for TIBr as a promising material that could support RIID enhancement.

While the THOR Program is not an acquisition program, the effort does support CWMD’s overarching objectives to:

• Acquire higher performing detection and identification devices at a lower cost.

• Increase operational efficiency by increasing detection and identification capability and reducing operational weight and size.

• Decrease lifecycle costs of existing RIIDs.

• Increase reliability by acquiring devices that are more ruggedized for operational conditions.

It is anticipated that TlBr has the potential to significantly increase the detection and identification performance of RIIDs at a significantly reduced cost. As a result, CWMD seeks to maximize the speed of TlBr transition into the commercial marketplace and a next generation RIID acquisition program is planned for FY2024 which may be able to leverage this technology. The THOR Program’s approach is to work with industry partners to integrate the detector material technology into detector prototype form factors suitable for

4 | P a g e testing in a laboratory environment. TlBr is already developed during Phases I and II of a TlBr Transformational R&D Program and packaged into Core Detector Modules (CDMs).

The CDMs will be provided on a “one-time” basis as Government furnished equipment (GFE) (see more detail below). The detector prototype designs will be tested and verified to have achieved a TRL of 7.

The deliverables of the THOR Program would be one to three prototypes per vendor which will demonstrate the capability of this technology, which can be vendor tested, and ultimately tested by a third party and/or the Government. The logic behind multiple units per vendor is for statistics as well as backups.

The reason for the Government offering to supply GFE is that significant effort has already gone into the development of the CDMs and in the interest of time and cost, the Government wants to leverage the progress to date. This is not to preclude a third-party vendor (proposal offeror) from developing their own CDMs based on the TlBr material up-front or sometime in the future.

Schematic Descriptions of the Two CDM Types

The CWMD R&D Division led the development of two types of TIBr CDMs. These two types of detectors are as follows:

Description of Pixelated CDM (as of January 12, 2021)

The Pixelated CDM consists of the semi-conductor detector with readout components needed to generate a calibrated and depth corrected gamma ray spectrum.

Figure 1. Block Diagram of the Pixelated Full-up Version of the CDM

Figure 1 shows the following basic components of the Pixelated full-up version of the CDM:

1. Pixelated TlBr Array with interconnect board;

2. Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC);3. Readout Electronics, Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), MicroProcessor; and

4. Single-board computer (SBC).

The TlBr array represents a semi-conductor crystal with an array of electrodes to generate electrical signals from the interaction of gamma rays with the dense, high-Z TlBr material.

The front-end electronics uses an ASIC and is designed to generate waveforms for

5 | P a g e implementing advanced signal processing techniques. The micro-processor block contains ADCs and serves as an interface between the signals from the front-end electronics and the SBC, which processes the signals and provides a standard network interface to access the calibrated and depth-corrected gamma ray spectrum.

Description of CFG CDM (as of January 12, 2021)

The Position-Sensitive Capacitive Frisch-Grid (PS-CFG) CDM is based on an array of 16 PS-CFG TlBr crystals. Each PS-CFG is based on a TlBr crystal with dimensions of 5 × 5 × 12 mm3. For the CFG CDM, the signals from the TlBr devices are read out using front-end electronics including the AVG3Dev ASIC, and an analog device that includes a 32-channel bank of charge-sensitive amplifiers. The amplified signals are digitized on a motherboard, then sent to an SBC. The SBC runs 3D correction software, which corrects non-uniformities in the detector response by virtually dividing each crystal into 3D voxels, then equalizing the response from each of the voxels. The output of the CDM is a data stream which includes the corrected energy spectrum. The prototype CDM is provided in a simple mechanical enclosure that includes connectors for AC power and data transfer using Ethernet and/or Universal Serial Bus (USB). A block diagram of the system is provided in Figure 2:

Figure 2. Block Diagram of the PS-CFG TlBr CDM

Plan to Deliver CDMs as GFE on a One-Time Basis

The plan is for the Government (CWMD) to provide version 1 CDMs as GFE via the present Transformational R&D effort in the R&D Division. These CDMs would not have optimized SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) but would provide enough of the functionality so the technology could be evaluated as part of this THOR effort

As an option to the Proposers/Offerors to this solicitation, the government would supply only a so-called “primitive” CDM, that being the crystal(s), packaged, with interconnect boards, and the Offeror would the provide their own front-end electronics. This option is open to the Offerors. Which option the Offeror desires should be stated in the Pitch Papers or Full- Proposal.

Description of SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power) Estimates for the CDMs

6 | P a g e

Following is an estimate of the SWaP for versions 1 CDMs, provided for purposes of planning regarding the integration of the CDMs into RIID prototypes within the THOR Program. The estimates are given in terms of ranges of expected parameters. Note that the CDMs could possibly in principle be redesigned/reconfigured to provide for improved SWaP compared to those numbers given below, but the numbers below are the rough estimates of what will be delivered to third-party vendors.

VERSION 1:

Sizes: (3.5” x 5.75” x 8.25”) to (4” x 6” x 8”)

Weight (including battery): 2.4 kg (5.3 lb) to 2.7 kg (6 lbs)

Power: 10 W at room temp

Output: Depth-corrected energy spectrum at 1 Hz; N42.42 format

Interface: WiFi with Bluetooth; USB and Ethernet

Additional Information Available via White Papers

There are several “White Papers” posted with this Topic Solicitation that were created to address several areas/questions brought up by vendors during the Industry Day and follow-on interviews held last April 2020. These short (1-3 pages) papers cover the following topics:

1. Long-term Stability of TlBr

2. Temperature Stability: Dependence of spectra, energy resolution, gain, dark current vs Temperature

3. Production (Supply Chain Capability to Support Future Procurements)

4. Intellectual Property Rights and Commercialization (2 white papers covering two different CDM versions)

5. Further References (Published Journal Articles covering various aspects of this technology)

Performance Metrics

Examples of high-level performance metrics (criteria) for the envisioned prototype(s) are included below. The complete list of criteria is provided in a separate attachment included with the Topic Solicitation titled Criteria Matrix for Thallium Bromide Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems Objective Resolution (THOR). Offerors are requested to indicate, in their pitch paper submissions, if their proposed approach can meet or exceed thresholds/objectives listed below and also in the Criteria Traceability Matrix attached.

Descriptor Criteria Threshold Objective

7 | P a g e

Gamma Detection

Device, during scanning operations, shall alarm/provide an indication when the radiation field changes from ambient background to that with a non-background source of radiation present.

Probability of detection (PD) ≥80% at a relative speed of 0.3 m/s and distance of closest approach of 0.61 m of

0.66 µR/hr of Co-57 and separately 7.53 µR/hr of Ba-133.

PD ≥80% at a relative speed of 0.61 m/s and distance of closest approach of 1.22 m of

0.66 µR/hr of Co-57 and separately 7.53 µR/hr of Ba-133.

Probability of Identification Unshielded

The device shall correctly identify with a probability of identification (PID) ≥ 80% the present radionuclides that are unshielded and produce 50 μR/hr above background at the reference point of the gamma detector, with the exception of NORM (Ra-226.

Th-232, K-40) that are to be 20 μR/hr above background.

Radionuclides/reactions listed as Priority 1, 2 and 3.

Radionuclides/reactions listed as Priority 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Probability of Identification Shielded

The device shall correctly identify, with a PID ≥ 80%, the present radionuclides that are shielded* and produce 50 μR/hr above background at the reference

Radionuclides/reactions listed as Priority 1 and 2.

Radionuclides/reactions listed as Priority 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

8 | P a g e point of the gamma detector, with the exception of NORM (Ra-226.

Th-232, K-40) that are to be 20 μR/hr above background.

Transmit Method

The device shall be able to transmit data using all of the listed interfaces.

1) USB 2.0 or higher

2) WiFi 5 (802.11ac)

3) Bluetooth security mode 3

4) Removable media

5) Cellular

6) Bluetooth security mode 4

Size Device shall have small physical dimensions.

≤ 33 cm x 23 cm x 16 cm

≤ 16 cm x 10 cm x 8 cm

Timeline

The following timeline is provided for planning purposes.

Initial Version CDMs will be available starting end of June 2021, with several additional phased deliveries between June 2021 and November 2021.

Figure 3. Tentative Schedule

Gov't Run T&E, Lab & Operational

CFG Design

Pixelated Design

Contracts

2021 2022 2023

2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Test Execution

Brassboard/RIID Integration

MS-0

MS-3

Brassboard/RIID Integration

CDM (Full-Up) Delivered

Internal test results

Internal test results

MS-1

MS-2

Awd CFG & Pixilated Contracts

MS-5a

Responses to Topic Solicitation

Topic Solicitation

TRL Review

Integration of Initial CFG RIID

Integration of Initial Pixelated RIID

PDR

PDR

CDM (Full-Up) Delivered

Pre-Solicitation

Responses to Pre-Solicitation

CDR

CDR

9 | P a g e

Phase Structure and Objectives

Research to be conducted under this topic solicitation will be a phased applied development activity. As noted in the schedule above, the approach described below will lead to an Optimized Critical Design Review (CDR).

Current ongoing TIBr R&D efforts have been developing the CDMs and will provide the CDM GFE to the THOR Program.

Funding estimates assume that the government will not fully fund the integration effort. The government funding may be adjusted based on industry input of a cost sharing proposal. A nominal phase structure and objectives are described below:

• Phase I - Brassboard Integration (4 months, $500,000): Upon the award of the THOR contracts to suitable detector development vendors, the CDMs will be integrated into first article gamma radiation detectors by industry partners. Each Offeror will specify their preferred version of the CDM they would like to pursue (Pixelated or CFG). The first articles produced as a result of the Brassboard Integration phase will be initially evaluated by the vendors followed by a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) leading to a decision on exercising the Integration of Initial RIID phase (Option 1).

• Phase II/Option 1 –Initial RIID Integration (9-12 months, $300,000): Depending on the success of the Preliminary Design Review, additional funding and time will be available to continue RIID integration and prepare for a Critical Design Review (CDR). After the CDR, the Government will conduct prototype criteria testing at a Government selected test facility to demonstrate a TRL of 6. The basis for the testing will be the Government approved criteria developed by the THOR Program. An Operational Demonstration of the prototypes will also be conducted, resulting in a TRL of 7.

5. Deliverables: The following minimum deliverables will be required under traditional procurement contracts awarded to those Offerors whose proposals are selected for award.

Performers should define additional program-specific deliverables as appropriate for the proposed approach.

Monthly Progress Reviews – Monthly (1 hr) Video conference call with 5-10 slides to include:

• Accomplishment & Highlights since last review

• Key Challenges

• Updated Schedule

• Technical Highlights

• Questions as needed

Performance Reviews: Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review Performance Reviews (PRs) will be held as scheduled. A kickoff meeting will take the place of the initial PR and shall be held within the first three (3) weeks after contract award. The PR briefing is due one week prior to the PR. A PR briefing will be comprehensive in nature and must include, where appropriate:

10 | P a g e

Executive summary (30 min)

• Conceptual Overview

• Capabilities; Performance targets; Goals

• Development Approach (technical tasks, teams, schedule)

• Key Challenges / Issues to Address

• Risks; Mitigation

• Accomplishments & Highlights

• Milestones: list all and progress towards each

• Remaining Issues

• Schedule: Gantt chart with milestones & deliverables indicated

• Cost (planned, actual, commitments)

• Effort for next quarter / phase / year as appropriate slides

Detailed technical and programmatic discussion (as long as required)

• Accomplishments: Plan vs Actual, per Task activities

• Prototype RIID Design Description

• Performance Prediction relative to THOR prototype requirements

• Schedule: Gantt chart by major task with list of milestones & list of deliverables included

• Cost: Expenditure burn over period of performance – monthly plan, actuals, commitments (to date) in graphical form

• Proof of Concept (Brassboard/RIID)

• Proposed Follow-On Effort

• Key Objectives

• Technical issues: risks and mitigation strategy

• Plans to complete Phase

• Technical Plans for next Quarter / to complete Phase, as appropriate

• Cost & Schedule

• Any additional information required by the CWMD PM.

Meeting minutes shall be generated within one week after the PR. The PR does not replace the monthly progress review.

End of Phase Performance Evaluation & Report Each phase concludes with submission of an End of Phase Report and may also include a performance evaluation. If a performance evaluation is required, the briefing material is due one week prior to the evaluation. The performance evaluation will be the basis for determining continued funding for the follow-on phase. The End of Phase Report does not replace the monthly progress report. The evaluation must include, where appropriate:

• Technical progress achieved against phase goals,

• A summary of technical challenges and risks, and risk mitigation strategies,

• A comprehensive accounting of all funds by program, project, and tasks expended during the phase along with a comparison of these figures with projections from the start of the contract, 11 | P a g e

• If follow-on work is proposed, updates as required to the project plan, milestones and schedule, statement of work (SOW) and cost breakdown for the next phase,

• Lessons learned and recommendations, and

• Any additional information required by the CWMD PM.

The End of Phase Report and meeting minutes are due two weeks after the evaluation or end of phase, whichever is soonest, and it should address issues raised during the evaluation.

Final Performance Evaluation & Report Each project concludes with submission of a Final Report due at the end of the final phase of the effort. The final report will be a cumulative, stand-alone document that describes the work of the entire program and project. The final report shall also include “lessons learned” from the effort, recommendations for future research in this area, and a comprehensive accounting of all funds expended. Prior to submission of this final performance report, a final performance evaluation may also occur. If a performance evaluation is required, the briefing material is due one week prior to the evaluation. A final report will be due no later than the end of the final phase’s period of performance.

Additional Deliverables

• Internal test plan provided to CWMD 1 month after kickoff to be reviewed and approved by CWMD T&E

• Internal test results and data prior to PDR and CDR (for Phase II/Option 1) due two weeks prior to PDR and CDR respectively.

• Two TIBR Prototype Brassboards or RIIDs for PDR and RIID CDR (for Phase II/Option 1) due two weeks prior to PDR and CDR respectively.

6. Number of Selections: CWMD expects to make up to 4 awards using its Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 funds under this Open Board Agency Announcement Topic Solicitation.

7. Anticipated Ceiling: Although subject to appropriations and funds availability, it is anticipated that no more than $500,000 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 funds will be available for an individual resultant award for this OBAA Topic Solicitation for Phase I. For planning purposes, the overall ceiling on an individual award should not exceed $800,000.

The Government will reserve the right to incrementally fund any resultant CLINS awarded from this OBAA Topic as provided by the FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds.”

8. Anticipated Award Type: The Government anticipates the award type will be in the form of FAR-based contracts.

12 | P a g e

9. Anticipated Award Dates: The 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2021 is when the government anticipates making a resultant award for this Topic Solicitation. However, the award date may vary based on the quality of the Proposals received and the availability of funds.

10. Pitch Papers: Pitch papers are being requested for this Topic Solicitation. Potential Offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the pitch paper process, but they are not required to submit a pitch paper in advance of a proposal. Pitch paper submission instructions and formatting guidance can be found in Section 10.1 and 10.2 below.

10.1. Pitch Paper Submission Instructions

Pitch papers must be submitted on or before the deadline listed in the Topic Solicitation (not later than 30 calendar days from Topic Solicitation posting), in electronic format and emailed to the inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. Pitch paper submissions consist of one (1) attachment in the email submission. Specific guidance is provided below regarding the email and pitch paper file name format.

In the email subject line, please use “CWMD OBAA Pitch Paper Submission for <organization>, Topic Solicitation No. 70RWMD(FY)R000000##”

Each pitch paper file name will include the following: “CWMDOBAA-PP-0#-XXXX,” where “0#” = number of pitch paper submission, and “XXXX” = four letter character shortcut for organization name

Example: Company A, Inc.’s submission for one pitch paper comprised of one (1) file in the attached email:

Subject: CWMD OBAA Pitch Paper Submission for Company A, Inc.

The email submission should at least include the following information:

• Organization: Company A, Inc.

• Submitted by: <first last name>, <title>, <email of submitter>

• Topic Solicitation No.: 70RWMD(FY)R000000##

• Attached file for submission:

o Pitch paper: CWMDOBAA-PP-01-COMA.pdf

• Request for receipt confirmation? (YES or NO)

Hard copy, facsimile, or hand delivered pitch papers will not be permitted or accepted.

Pitch papers should be submitted well in advance of the deadline for submission, to ensure completion of the electronic submission process by the date and time of the deadline, as stated in the Topic Solicitation. Any pitch paper submissions received by the Government after the deadline for submission will not be accepted. It is highly encouraged that Offerors do not wait until the last minute to submit their pitch paper(s). Receipt of pitch papers will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208 and FAR 52.215-1.

10.2. Format and Content of Pitch Paper

mailto:CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov

13 | P a g e

Pitch papers should capture the essence of a complete proposal and are designed to permit potential Offerors an opportunity to obtain feedback from CWMD on their proposed project without having to go to the expense and effort of writing a proposal. Such exchanges are to improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities, thereby allowing the potential Offerors to judge whether or how they can satisfy the Government’s requirements and to enhance the Government’s ability to obtain quality supplies and services, at reasonable prices, and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, and contract award. A pitch paper shall consist of a maximum of two (2) pages, including all pictures, figures, tables, and charts in legible size. The Quad Chart described below is included in the two page limit. The cover sheet will not be included in the two page limit.

A pitch paper is a single electronic file in PDF format, viewable by Microsoft Windows-7 compatible machines. The individual pitch paper file size must be no more than 5 MB. Pitch papers shall not exceed two pages (standard size: 8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins and 12-point fonts or larger for text and 9-point fonts or larger for pictures, figures, tables and charts. The pitch paper should contain the following information in the following order:

• Cover Sheet (see Attachment C for format, not included in two page limit);

• Quad Chart (see Attachment E for format, included in two page limit);

• One page summary capturing information not included in the Quad Chart or Cover

Sheet abstract to include:

o Technical Approach and Critical Path: Describe the main research goals, and main tasks and methodologies to be employed to achieve these goals. Point out the critical research path to the proposed investigation, to include what will specifically be accomplished during the initial phase(s) of the effort to achieve research objectives.

o Team Capability and Experience: List and describe the extent of your team’s past experience and current capabilities to successfully execute the proposed research project.

o Management Approach: Provide a summary description of the management structure and approach for the effort.

If the pitch paper is found to be responsive to the topic, CWMD will schedule a brief (no more than 15 minute) scientific engagement discussion with the Offeror. The primary purpose of the scientific engagement discussion is for the Government to learn more about the proposed prototype, the potential Offeror, and their capabilities. The Government will not be obligated by these discussions and nothing discussed will authorize the potential Offeror to work, start work, or bill for work. During these scientific discussion engagement sessions, CWMD:

• Will ask clarifying questions about the information provided in the pitch paper.

This includes questions to obtain a better understanding of the advantages and issues associated with a technical approach.

• Will not attempt to replace the potential Offeror’s original ideas with their own.

• Will not provide information concerning the objectives/criteria of the topic to one potential Offeror without providing the information to all potential Offerors.

14 | P a g e

• May note that a particular proposed feature or capability is not required by the Government to meet topic objectives or criteria and will provide that information regarding such functions or capabilities to all potential Offerors.

• Will not share ideas of technical solutions that were provided by another potential source.

After this review, CWMD will promptly notify potential Offerors, either encouraging or not encouraging submission of a proposal. It is anticipated that responses will be provided no later than 10 days after the pitch paper deadline. If a proposal submission is not encouraged, the general basis for the opinion to not encourage further participation will be provided. If a proposal submission is encouraged, comments and questions regarding the pitch paper submission will be provided, which may include comments regarding the potential Offeror’s apparent Capability and Experience and Management Approach.

Pitch papers will be reviewed against four (4) criteria in order of importance: Strategic Impact, Technical Approach, Capability and Experience, and Management Approach. A description of these criteria can be found in Section 12.

11. Proposals: CWMD will not reimburse Offerors for any proposal preparation costs.

Proposals shall remain valid from the date of submission for at least six (6) months. Proposal submission instructions and formatting guidance can be found in Section 11.1 and 11.2 below.

11.1. Proposal Submission Instructions

Offerors shall submit proposals no later than the deadline set forth in the Topic Solicitation and the notification letters encouraging proposal submission. Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic format and email their proposals to the inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. An Offeror may choose to alter its ideas, concepts, technical approaches, etc. or expand on its original ideas reflected in the Offeror’s pitch paper (if submitted) at any time after the submission of the Offeror’s pitch paper and prior to the Offeror’s submission of its proposal. Exchanges between the Government and a potential Offeror regarding the potential Offeror’s pitch paper are not binding.

Proposals consist of three separate documents described in detail below:

• Volume I: Technical and Management proposal (Not to exceed 16 pages. The cover sheet (Attachment D) will not be included in the 16 page limit);

• Volume II: Supplemental Data (Not to exceed 30 pages);

• Volume III: Cost proposal (no page limit).

Volume I is the primary document to be evaluated by the technical reviewers, with Volumes II and III providing supporting information. Note that Volume I should be a stand-alone document, describing, consistent with section 5.3.2 below, the material aspects of the proposed effort. The supplemental material in Volumes II and III are intended to support Volume I’s statements and ensure compliance with non-technical aspects of the solicitation. All volumes will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer to ensure

15 | P a g e compliance with the requirements of the OBAA. For instance, Volume III will serve as the formal cost submission for future contracting discussions should the proposal be recommended for award from a technical aspect.

Specific guidance is provided below regarding the email and proposal file name format.

In the email subject line, please use “CWMD OBAA Proposal Submission for <organization>, Topic Solicitation No. 70RWMD(FY)R000000##”

Each proposal file name will include the following: “CWMDOBAA-VOL#-FP-0#-XXXX,” where “VOL#” = volume number, “0#” = number of proposal submission, and “XXXX” = four letter character shortcut for organization name.

Example: Company A, Inc.’s submission for one proposal comprised of the three separate files in the attached email:

Subject: CWMD OBAA proposal Submission for Company A

• Volume I file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL1-FP-01-COMA (.pdf file)

• Volume II file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL2-FP-01-COMA (.pdf file)

• Volume III file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL3-FP-01-COMA (.xls or .xlsx file)

The email for the proposal submission should at least include the following information:

• Organization: Company A, Inc.

• Submitted by: <first last name>, <project title>, <email of submitter>

• Topic Solicitation No.: 70RWMD(FY)R000000##

• Attached Files for Submissions:

1. Volume 1 – CWMDOBAA-VOL1-FP-01-COMA.pdf

2. Volume 2 – CWMDOBAA-VOL2-FP-01-COMA.pdf

3. Volume 3 – CWMDOBAA-VOL3-FP-01-COMA.xls (or .xlsx)

• Request for receipt confirmation? (YES or NO)

Hard copy, facsimile, or hand delivered proposals are not permitted or accepted.

Offerors shall submit their proposals well in advance of the proposal submission deadline, in order to ensure completion of the electronic submission process no later than the date and time of the deadline, as set forth in the particular Topic Solicitation. Any proposal submissions received by the Government after the submission deadline will not be accepted unless receipt of the proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition and it was the only proposal received. It is highly encouraged that Offerors do not wait until the last minute to submit their proposal(s).

11.2. Format and Content of Proposals:

The three-volumes consist of three separate electronic files, which may need to be delivered to the Government in separate emails but may be transmitted in a single email if size limitations permit. Volumes I and II will only be accepted in PDF format. Volume III will

16 | P a g e only be accepted in Microsoft Excel format (only .xls and .xlsx files are acceptable). The maximum file size for each volume is 10 MB. Memory sizes of graphic images should be minimized before insertion into any of the files and should support clear display and document printing. Non-conforming proposals may be rejected without review.

Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (16 pages) Volume I shall provide the primary technical and management description of the proposal.

Volume I is the primary document to be evaluated by the technical reviewers, with Volumes II and III used as supplementary material. Volume I shall not exceed sixteen (16) pages of standard size (8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins in 12 pt fonts or larger for text and 9-point fonts or larger for pictures, figures, tables and charts for all Topic Solicitations.

Volume I shall include the sections described below. The section headings below are mandatory, the page limits for each section are suggestions, and only the overall limit of 16 pages will be considered during compliance checks. Proposals for which Volume I exceeds the 16 page limit will have any pages above the 16 page limit removed and those pages will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Quad Chart (1 page) The general Quad Chart can be found in Appendix C. The proposal Quad Chart content does not have to be the same as the pitch paper Quad Chart, but should be in a similar format.

Strategic Impact (1.5 Pages) Describe how the intended research will provide strategic impact to the CWMD mission to counter attempts by terrorists or other threat actors to carry out an attack against the United States or its interests using a weapon of mass destruction.

• What CWMD need(s) is/are being addressed and discuss the impact on that need(s) if the project were successful?

• What is the expected performance of the technology or system with respect to the research Topic Solicitation objectives and/or current-state-of-art? What are the quantitative performance improvements expected?

• How will this performance dramatically reduce the technical, performance or cost risks in achieving CWMD mission objectives?

• What are the envisioned transition activities for the resulting technology, to include identification of CWMD end user?

Technical Approach and Implementation (7.5 Pages) Technical Approach (3.0 pages) This narrative section should describe in detail what is intended to be accomplished and the premise or theory justifying the approach taken. It should describe the fundamental principle, premise or theory that the work will explore, the scientific approach being pursued to explore this premise, and how the results or data from the effort will be analyzed and/or evaluated.

This section should also provide some detail as to why this particular approach was taken, and an estimate of the risk in achieving research goals. In developing the technical approach, the following should be considered:

• Is there a clear understanding of the research objectives and driving goals?

17 | P a g e

• Are the research objectives/goals clearly supported by appropriate performance modeling, analysis or existing literature, and are quantitative performance metrics defined, as appropriate?

• What technological choices were made and why, including trade studies which were made and alternate technologies/approaches which were considered?

• What is the likelihood the research goals are achievable as proposed in pursuit of the stated research objectives?

Technical Implementation (4.5 Pages) This Section should provide a detailed outline of the plans and rationale for technical implementation including a summary of proposed tasks (work breakdown structure) for each phase of the effort. The discussion of Phase I tasks is expected to be more comprehensive than those of the follow-on phases. The narrative should answer the following questions:

• What key research or development tasks are needed to execute the effort?

• Is the technical plan clear, detailed and complete so as to fully explain how research objectives will be met?

• Have likely risks in the proposed technical approach been identified and is there a risk mitigation strategy?

• What is the critical path and milestones for the effort? Have methods been proposed for assessing technical progress?

Capability and Experience (1.5 Pages) This section should provide an overview of the Offeror’s experience relative to RIID integration and design. This section should address the following:

• Team’s understanding of past scientific and technical accomplishments and the current state-of-the art knowledge or technology;

• Prior experience and performance of the team (to include history of subcontractor performance, if applicable) in related efforts demonstrating an ability to perform innovative research and deliver results/products within proposed budgets/schedules.

• Completeness of proposed team to complete all required tasks.

Management Approach (2 Pages) This section should provide an overview of the proposed management approach, tools, and management processes to be used to execute the project. This section must provide:

• Delineation of schedule, phasing and milestones via integrated master plan and schedule (including all hardware deliverables and reviews). The schedule shall be presented in a Gantt chart.

• Delineation of roles, responsibilities and coordination among all team members and organizations, to include description of subcontractors (if applicable) will be managed;

• If necessary, a brief summary of required information, facilities, equipment, materials and data which must be provided by the Government to support the proposed work;

• If necessary, a security plan that describes the rationale for what aspects of the work need to be protected, at what level, and proposed strategy for doing so.

18 | P a g e

Cost/Price (1.5 Pages) This section should provide an overview of the total cost of the proposed work. This section must provide:

• The type of award vehicle proposed.

• A narrative description of the cost and cost-estimation approach.

• Cost allocation over all phases.

• A listing of costs per task for Phase I, itemized as shown in the table below.

Task Labor ($k)

Materials and Supplies ($k)

Capital Equipment ($k)

Travel ($k)

Subcontracts ($k) Total ($K)

N Total

• A listing of costs per phase, over the entire project, itemized as shown in the table below.

Phase Labor ($k)

Materials and Supplies ($k)

Capital Equipment ($k)

Travel ($k)

Subcontracts ($k) Total ($k)

I V Total

Note 1 – For each Subcontractor and Consultant cost, the prime Offeror must submit a detailed breakdown by labor, materials, equipment, travel and other costs.

Volume II, Supplemental Data Proposal (30 pages) Volume II, the Supplemental Data proposal, will be used to ensure the proposal guidelines have been met. Volume II may not exceed thirty (30) pages of standard size (8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins in 12 pt fonts or larger. The first two sections are mandatory (Experience and Statement of Work); the other sections (Technical Approach, Management Approach, Small Business Considerations, Employee Eligibility Verification, and Assertion of Data Rights) are optional.

Statement of Work Provide a detailed statement of work (SOW), by task, for all phases of the proposed work using the template provided. Tasks and sub-tasks up to three levels are recommended for efforts of high complexity. Quantitative performance or time milestones must be defined.

Describe all deliverables proposed under this effort, including data, software, and reports, material or systems consistent with objectives of the work involved.

19 | P a g e

Technical Approach Provide additional or supplemental technical information and data not included in Volume I.

Management Approach Provide additional or supplemental information describing how the overall effort will be managed.

Small Business Considerations Proposals that exceed $700,000, except for those submitted by small business concerns, must include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.7 and FAR 52.219-9. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is included in the 30 page limit.

Although the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be included in the proposal, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not an evaluated factor. Proposals that do not include a required Plan will receive no further consideration.

Regardless of the proposed dollar value, all Offerors shall indicate their business size status and list all subcontractors and their business size statuses. All Offerors are encouraged to offer subcontracting opportunities to small businesses to the maximum extent practicable.

Employment Eligibility Verification Include a statement specifying compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-54.

Assertion of Data Rights Include a summary of any assertions to any technical data or computer software (as each term is defined in FAR 52.227-14(a)) that will be developed or delivered under any resultant award. This includes any assertions to pre-existing results, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. Any rights asserted in other parts of the proposal that would impact the rights in this Section must be cross-referenced. If less than unlimited rights (as defined in FAR 52.227-14(a)) in any data delivered under the resultant award are asserted, the Offeror must explain how these rights in the technical data or computer software will affect its ability to deliver research data, subsystems, and toolkits for integration as set forth below. Additionally, the Offeror must explain how the program goals are achievable in light of these proprietary and/or restrictive limitations in the technical data or computer software. If there are no claims of proprietary rights in pre-existing data, this section shall consist of a statement to that effect.

Proposals submitted in response to any topic issued against this OBAA shall identify all technical data or computer software that the Offeror asserts will be furnished to the Government with restrictions on access, use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure. Offeror's pre-award identification of such claims shall be submitted using the following Assertions Table as an attachment to its offer and shall contain the following information:

Assertions Table

20 | P a g e

For each deliverable listed in the below table, please identify any assertion of restriction on the Government’s Use, release or disclosure of technical data or computer software.

Deliverable

Technical Data or Computer Software to be Furnished With Restrictions*

Basis for Assertion**

Asserted Rights Category***

Name of Person Asserting Restrictions****

*For technical data (other than computer software documentation) pertaining to items, components, or processes developed at private expense, identify both the deliverable technical data and each such item, component, or process. For computer software or computer software documentation identify the software or documentation.

**Generally, development at private expense, either exclusively or partially, is the only basis for asserting restrictions. For technical data, other than computer software documentation, development refers to development of the item, component, or process to which the data pertain. The Government's rights in computer software documentation generally may not be restricted. For computer software, development refers to the software.

Indicate whether development was accomplished exclusively or partially at private expense.

If development was not accomplished at private expense, or for computer software documentation, enter the specific basis for asserting restrictions.

***Enter asserted rights category (e.g., government purpose license rights from a prior contract, limited, restricted, or government purpose rights under this or a prior contract, or specially negotiated licenses).

****Corporation, individual, or other person, as appropriate, or enter “none” when all data or software will be submitted without restrictions.

Completed by:

Signature Date Printed Name and Title

(1) Statement of Assertion. Include the following statement: “The Offeror asserts for itself, or the persons identified below, that the Government's rights to access, use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose only the following technical data or computer software should be restricted.”

(2) Identification of the technical data or computer software to be furnished with restrictions.

For technical data (other than computer software documentation) pertaining to items, components, or processes developed at private expense, identify both the deliverable technical data and each such item, component, or process as specifically as possible (e.g., 21 | P a g e by referencing specific sections of the proposal or specific technology or components).

For computer software or computer software documentation, identify the software or documentation by specific name or module or item number.

(3) Detailed description of the asserted restrictions. For each of the technical data or computer software identified above in paragraph (2), identify the following information:

(i) Asserted rights. Identify the asserted rights for the technical data or computer software (Please see FAR 52.227-14 and FAR 52.227-15).

(ii) Copies of negotiated, commercial, and other non-standard licenses. Offeror shall attach to its offer for each listed item copies of all proposed negotiated license(s), Offeror's standard commercial license(s), and any other asserted restrictions other than Government purpose rights; limited rights; restricted rights; rights under prior government contracts, including SBIR data rights for which the protection period has not expired; or government’s minimum rights.

(iii) Specific basis for assertion. Identify the specific basis for the assertion. For example:

• Development at private expense, either exclusively or partially. For technical data, development refers to development of the item, component, or process to which the data pertains. For computer software, development refers to the development of the software. Indicate whether development was accomplished exclusively or partially at private expense.

• Rights under a prior government contract, including SBIR data rights for which the protection period has not expired.

• Standard commercial license customarily provided to the public.

• Negotiated license rights.

(iv) Entity asserting restrictions. Identify the corporation, partnership, individual, or other person, as appropriate, asserting the restrictions.

(4) Previously delivered technical data or computer software. The Offeror shall identify the technical data or computer software that are identical or substantially similar to…