ONRBAA11-031 21 sep 2011.pdf

ONR BAA Number 11-031 1

ONR BAA Announcement # ONR BAA 11-031

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)

Simulation Toolset for Analysis of Mission, Personnel & Systems (STAMPS)

INTRODUCTION:

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016, the Department of Defense Grants and Agreements Regulations (DoDGARS) 22.315(a), and DoD’s Other Transactions Guide for Prototype Projects, USD(AT&L), OT Guide, 21 Dec 2000. A formal Request for Proposals (RFP), other solicitation, or additional information regarding this announcement will not be issued.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) will not issue paper copies of this announcement.

The ONR reserves the right to select for award all some or none of the proposals in response to this announcement. The ONR reserves the right to fund all, some or none of the proposals received under this BAA. ONR provides no funding for direct reimbursement of proposal development costs. Technical and cost proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. It is the policy of ONR to treat all proposals as sensitive competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Agency Name -

Office of Naval Research One Liberty Center 875 N. Randolph Street

ONR BAA Number 11-031 2

Arlington, VA 22203-1995

2. Research Opportunity Title – Simulation Toolset for Analysis of Mission, Personnel & Systems (STAMPS)

3. Program Name – Capable Manpower Future Naval Capability

4. Research Opportunity Number – ONR BAA 11-031

5. Response Date -

White Papers: November 1, 2011

Full Proposals: January 10, 2012

6. Research Opportunity Description -

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is interested in receiving proposals to develop a set of tools for evaluating the manpower impacts of various platform designs, system enhancements, and Active Fleet deployments. The tool set – to be known as the Simulation Toolset for Analysis of Mission, Personnel and Systems (STAMPS) – will report on the training impacts of technology introduction; the effectiveness of proposed crew complements to operate and maintain the platform/system under a wide variety of realistic scenarios; and the effectiveness of manpower reduction features. STAMPS' objectives are: 1) to provide the Navy’s decision authorities with realistic data on the effectiveness and cost implications of new platform/system designs and new deployments for existing assets, and 2) to identify where efficiencies can be achieved.

Introduction

Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships manages acquisition for all current and future non-nuclear U.S. Navy surface ships. As one of the Defense Department’s largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for managing the development and procurement of a diverse array of shipbuilding programs, ranging from complex warships, such as frontline surface combatants and amphibious assault ships, to special mission and support ships, such as air-cushioned landing craft, oceanographic research ships and special warfare craft. As an acquisition office, PEO Ships reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. The PEO is organized into acquisition program offices, each responsible for specific product lines, as well as an acquisition management support office. PEO Ships is currently managing the development and construction of 10 major ship classes and a wide range of small boats and craft. Since its creation in November 2002, PEO Ships has delivered 40 major warships and hundreds of small boats and craft from more than 20 shipyards and boat builders across the United States.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 3

Program Executive Officer for Aircraft Carriers is responsible for cradle-to-grave support of all active and future aircraft carriers in the Department of the Navy. The specific programs under the purview of PEO Carriers are the CVN 68 Class Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) Program, In-Service aircraft carrier maintenance and modernization program, and the CVN78 Program, which is an ACAT 1D major defense acquisition program. PEO Aircraft Carriers is responsible for all major technology development and risk reduction efforts that are critical for active and future aircraft carriers to meet required mission capabilities. The estimated cost of all the programs under the control of PEO Aircraft Carriers is over 30 billion dollars.

Program Executive Officer Submarines focuses on the design, construction, delivery, and conversion of submarines and advanced undersea and anti-submarine systems, including Special Operations Forces delivery systems; submarine rescue systems; torpedoes; towed acoustics sensors; and unique submarine sonar, control, imaging and electronic warfare systems.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has established four major doctrines that identify the objectives and requirements for manpower assessments.

Figure 1 depicts the acquisition phases identified in DoD 5000.02, the overarching requirements document for DoD acquisition programs. The following sections identify the manpower assessment requirements established during each phase of the acquisition process.

Figure 1 – Defense Acquisition Program Phases

ONR BAA Number 11-031 4

Material Development Decision Acquisition program manpower assessments start at program initiation. As part of the Materiel Development Decision (MDD), acquisition programs are required to develop a preliminary Manpower Estimate Report (MER). Because the platform design is limited to a set of operating criteria, the MDD MER is written at a high level. It primarily identifies goals and methods that will be explored to achieve a workload balance, and provides preliminary indication of any workload concerns that should be addressed as the program progresses. The platform’s Program Office is typically not established during MDD. Early MER analysis and documentation is handled at the OPNAV level.

Material Solution Analysis (MS A) During Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA), the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) will be developed and delivered for Milestone A (MS A). At this phase, the platform design is expressed by high level system capabilities and technology components that will be explored to achieve the desired capabilities. Because the platform design is still very limited, the MSA SEP are also written at a high level, with minimal analysis to address manpower requirements. The MSA documentation may also be used to set standards for manpower totals/expectations, and establish the strategy for conducting manpower analysis throughout the follow-on phases.

Technology Development (MS B) During the Technology Development (TD), manpower assessments are performed on the evolving platform design and reported in the Capability Development Document (CDD), Acquisition Strategy, detailed SEP, and detailed MER. Each of these documents is required entrance criteria for MS B. Additionally, the manpower assessment strategy for Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) will be identified in the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)-approved Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). The LFT&E strategy identifies specific post-MS B tasking that will be performed to identify platform and crew survivability against threats likely to be encountered in combat, including the crew’s ability to treat injured personnel, contain shipboard casualties (fire, flooding, smoke), and maintain/restore mission capabilities after sustaining realistic battle damage.

In accordance with the DoD acquisition process, the platform design risks are explored and mitigated during the TD period. A Preliminary Design Review (PDR) is conducted prior to close-out of the TD period, followed by the “lock down” of the acquisition program requirements in the CDD. However, the level of design available during TD can vary greatly from one platform program to the next, depending on the number and type of new technologies being explored for the design, and the schedule. The acquisition process has addressed this possible variation by allowing the PDR to occur after MS B, if warranted.

The type and fidelity of the manpower assessments performed during TD will be highly dependent on platform design detail and available manpower assessment experts and tools. Typically, TD manpower reviews employ Subject Matter Expert (SME) reviews of the design and operating guidelines to determine rate equivalencies for task assignments, ONR BAA Number 11-031 5 summation of workload estimates, and a complex sixty to ninety day underway period.

Findings from these reviews form the basis of the manpower reporting contained in the Acquisition Strategy, detailed SEP, and detailed MER. They also support manpower requirements and Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) identified in the CDD.

Engineering and Manufacturing Development (MS C) During Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), the MER and Acquisition Strategy will be updated, and the final SEP will be delivered. These documents are required entrance criteria for MS C. Additionally, the LFT&E assessments are performed and reported in two to four progressive Vulnerability Assessment Reports (VARs).

During EMD, the platform build and construction specifications are developed down to the lowest level of detail required to ensure compliance with the CDD. The platform design will undergo several baseline development and evaluation phases, during which the various aspects of the design will be integrated into a single platform representation and evaluated to ensure appropriate intra-connectivity of distributed systems (e.g., power, air, network, cooling) and compliance with the CDD requirements.

EMD manpower assessments conducted for requirements compliance are similar to those begun during TD. Updates incorporate additional information obtained from the design progression. Several LFT&E analyses are conducted to examine how the platform and crew respond to threats likely to be encountered in combat. Likely hit points are generated by modeling & simulation (M&S) along with predictions for onboard damage.

M&S and engineering analyses are used to determine how the shipboard equipment and crew respond to the damage to: treat injured crew members, contain casualties (fire, flooding & smoke), and maintain/restore mission capabilities. A sample set of damage scenarios are selected for simulation onboard the first platform of the class, to validate predictive capabilities. Higher fidelity manpower assessments are typically achieved during EMD, as compared to TD, because more detail is available on the platform design and required manual work responses.

Production & Deployment (P&D) and Operation & Support (O&S) The bulk of engineering and design support for the acquisition process typically ends at Full-Rate Production Design Review (FRPDR). Final version of the MER, Acquisition Strategy and VAR are developed and forwarded to the final approval authorities. The bulk of the manpower assessment effort will be integrating findings from shipboard suitability and operability testing into the results.

Manpower Methodology The Navy has established standards for identifying the manpower requirements needed to design the platform for the intended mission. A general methodology for determining manpower requirements has been established and documented in OPNAV and NAVMAC instructions, and is depicted below.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 6

The process starts by interpreting information contained in the platform’s Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Required Operational Capability/Projected Operational Environment (ROC/POE), which establish the conditions that the Navy will deploy the platform in support of wartime missions. The ROC/POE identifies specific platform operational capabilities required during deployments. The capabilities are reviewed and evaluated to determine the watch stations required to maintain the various operational capabilities over the sustained deployment. This capability reflects the first pillar in the above depiction.

The second, third and fourth pillars address personnel actions required to support non-wartime operational tasking. Although these tasks are not directly related to wartime activities, they are required to ensure the platform is capable and ready to engage in wartime tasking when the platform is called upon to do so. Manpower requirements for maintenance, own unit support, and directed requirements are established by assessing the tasks needed to ensure safe, effective and continuous operation of the platform.

During the acquisition process, the manpower requirements established for these efforts are identified by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), using a variety of data collection sources (i.e., work sampling, operational audits, and historical data).

Watch station requirements derived from the ROC/POE evaluation, and non-wartime tasks are entered into the Navy’s Manpower Requirements System (NMRS) computer tool. NMRS applies a set of Navy standards (i.e., work-week allocations, unexpected/unplanned maintenance, degradation due to adverse environment/overwork conditions, etc.) to the platform’s workload and watch station tasks. NMRS also provides access to historical data from existing platform watch station and workload requirements, to support billet selection and validation. The tools and data available through NMRS allow the platform developer to identify the minimum number of personnel required to be

Manpower Documents (SMD/FMDs) What if?

REQUIREMENTS INFORMATION

COMPUTER OPTIMIZATION

TOTAL WORKLOAD

(Man-hours)

FLEET VALIDATION VISITS & OTHER DATA

ROC/POE & CONFIGURATION

OPERATIONAL

MANNING

OWN UNIT

SUPPORT

MAINT

(PM/CM/FM)

DIRECTED

REQUIREMENTS

ONR BAA Number 11-031 7 assigned to the platform. The resulting manpower requirements are documented in the Ship Manpower Document (SMD) and the Fleet Manpower Document (FMD).

Current Manpower Assessment Limitations The following limitations are identified for the current processes employed to address manpower assessments during PEO acquisition programs.

MDD Phase Limitations

The platform detail available at MDD does not support an accurate manpower assessment or estimate. Information contained in the early MER is often subjective and speculative.

MSA Phase Limitations

The platform detail available at MSA does not support an accurate manpower assessment or estimate. Information contained in the early SEP, like the MDD, is often subjective and speculative.

TD Phase Limitations

Manpower requirements are highly dependent on the system design and specifications. The level of platform design and operational detail available during requirements generation (MS B CDD and KPP establishment) often does not support an accurate assessment of manpower needs. This leads to the establishment of manpower requirements without justification for optimization or total ownership costs.

The current trend for determining manpower requirements is to establish total crew limits and/or configurations. This manner of requirements measure does not support design optimization for manpower reductions that support return on investments, and enable inefficiencies in the design process.

Manpower requirements and KPPs are established at MS B. The level of design detail available at the end of TD can vary greatly from one platform program to the next, depending on the number and type of new technologies being explored for the design and the schedule. The acquisition process has addressed this possible variation by allowing the PDR to occur after MS B, if warranted.

However, this only further hinders the use of design analysis for establishing manpower requirements.

Current doctrine does not establish methodologies for the majority of objectives and requirements established for manpower assessments and reporting during the acquisition process. The lack of clear-cut methodologies has created a variety of approaches for performing manpower assessments. The lack of standardization increases cost and decreases the accuracy of manpower assessments across acquisition programs.

Manpower assessment tools and methods are limited to conditions that are statistically insignificant for the number and type of real world conditions that the platform would face during deployment. Measuring manpower adequacy for a 60 or 90 day deployment does not ensure manning adequacy for a majority of realistic deployments, or identify deployment conditions where available

ONR BAA Number 11-031 8 manpower would hinder retention of mission capabilities, or platform survivability.

EMD Phase Limitations

Variations between manpower requirement and LFT&E assessment processes lead to varying, and often contradictory, results being reported for manpower adequacy.

The EMD period provides the most accurate conditions for assessing manpower, due to the availability of detailed design, operating, maintenance and training data. However, implementing changes to the manning configuration or platform design can be difficult during this phase. The ship’s requirements will have been locked down (in the CDD). Findings that can limit/optimize total ownership costs, but do not instigate deviations in the requirements, can be ignored due to the acquisition program's strong focus on requirements compliance.

Methodology employed for requirements compliance and LFT&E only examines a small set of the realistic scenarios that the platform could face during deployment.

LFT&E manpower assessments occur too late in the acquisition program to support manpower integration and balancing with the design development.

Technical Areas STAMPS’ goal will be to develop a single toolset that addresses Navy’s manpower assessment needs for acquisition programs, manpower organizations, and the active fleet.

This BAA announcement requests proposals that focus on three technical areas to overcome the limitations discussed above:

1. Acquisition Organization Needs

Evaluate preliminary system designs against a multitude of realistic ship deployment conditions/scenarios, and use results to optimize design for retention of system requirements. Use reporting criteria to establish cost-benefit rationale for manpower reduction features. Evaluate baseline designs (integration of system representations developed by various design teams) against a multitude of realistic ship deployments, and use results to optimize design for retention of mission capabilities. Use reporting criteria to ensure system and manpower optimization for TOC. Review reporting criteria to ensure CDD requirements for manning and system capabilities are maintained throughout the set of realistic deployments.

a. S & T Issue - Select realistic conditions/scenarios for assessment. Current system and manpower assessments are conducted on a limited set of scenarios, less than 1% of the realistic operating conditions that the ship can face during realistic deployments.

There is a need to:

Allow various evaluation/oversight organizations to specify the types of scenarios that should be assessed.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 9

Apply evolutionary computing algorithms (ECAs) to examine proposed system and manpower inputs, and identify specific scenarios that cover the breath of conditions specified for assessment.

Apply ECA module to all other modules as they become available to allow automatic search of increasingly complex operating scenarios.

Desired Outcome - Reduce number of baseline design reviews required to optimize system design and manpower compliments – 15% reduction in design process (estimated savings to be $25M/acquisition program, based on DDG 1000 baseline review teams arrangement and cost).

b. S & T Issue - Select platform operating conditions (e.g., GQ, Condition III, UNREP), manning arrangement, and system alignments that will be assessed. Current system and manpower assessments are conducted independent of each other, with a very different set of operating conditions. The limited set of operating conditions/alignments is a major contributor to the lack of coverage for assessment conditions/ representations.

There is a need to:

Allow system designers to identify the various operating conditions achievable for the system design, including damage responses.

Survey current system modeling programs to identify the modeling method and data architecture best-suited to represent system functionality.

Identify how to represent each system independently with the multiple degrees of freedom inherent in the various alignment and configuration conditions.

Identify how to represent inter-dependent systems given the various flow-down, flow-up degrees of freedom and dependencies.

Establish methodologies to incorporate variables for determining system based manual tasking requirements.

Apply platform system representation method to all other modules as they become available to allow automatic search of system operating variations and representations.

Desired Outcome - Improve platform response to deployment scenarios not previously considered during the design development process

c. S & T Issue - Determine platform system responses to the conditions within different scenarios, and identify: a) Crew actions and response timelines required to ensure that the platform maintains mission critical capabilities throughout the scenario (Critical Response Times), b) System responses that degrade operation regardless of the crew responses (e.g., damage to single point failures in the system design or other non-recoverable conditions). Limited capabilities exist today that can integrate the system models into a single, coherent, representation of the platform. Existing system models

ONR BAA Number 11-031 10 typically neglect the impact of the human element, or use assumed response times for each equipment task, regardless of the platform’s manning complement, availability, or training levels. There is a need to:

Develop methodology for extracting crew responses needed to ensure system maintains operational capabilities, from system models.

Conduct human performance tests to define crew responses needed to ensure system maintains operational capabilities, from system models.

Investigate critical response categories/times associated with equipment and system functionality for all operating conditions.

Develop process for extracting critical response time from system design information inputs, based on specific system conditions/scenarios.

Verify critical response time determination method against known critical response times for a sample set of platform systems and attempt to define associated levels of confidence.

Determine system responses that degrade functionality independent of manpower.

Develop model that will evaluate impact of system design changes on the overall ship response.

Desired Outcome - Improve ship response to deployment scenarios not previously considered during the design development process.

2. Manpower Organization Needs

Allow early identification (as early as MS) of new system design and technology development impacts on manpower requirements. Inclusion of manpower costs (e.g., required rates, training updates, recruitment & retention) & total ownership cost in design decisions to implement new equipment, systems or procedures. Use reporting criteria to ensure ship design and manpower complement are optimized for the ship’s service life.

Early identification of new training requirements and early training community involvement with system designers, to ensure adequate training materials are developed during the design development process.

S & T Issue - Determine if/how the crew will perform required system responses and other actions required during different scenarios, and identify: a) The probability of tasking being completed within the Critical Response Times, b) The value added for design investments that expedite manpower responses (e.g., autonomous responses, automation, remote operations). Existing manpower assessment tools do not have the capability to address system alignment or system responses. As a result, manpower assessments are based on a limited set of specific system tasks conducted during a pre-determined 60 or 90 day deployment timeline. These represent less than 1% of the possible manpower tasking required during realistic deployments. There is a need to:

ONR BAA Number 11-031 11

Develop methodology for determining probability of a specific task being completed, given all the realistic circumstances facing the individual performing the task (e.g., other workload requirements, fatigue, educational level, availability, accessibility)

Develop agent-based models to simulate manpower behaviors under user-defined operating conditions & realistic equipment response conditions.

Establish processes for identifying the impact of design investments in expediting crew responses

Desired Outcome - Early manpower impact assessment & cost-benefit evaluation during requirements and design development.

Summary The results of this effort will increase acquisition program managers and policy makers’ awareness of the true costs and value associated with technology insertion on war fighting capabilities. It will accelerate the understanding of the key issues of a program manager’s acquisition decision trade space when inserting technology into the acquisition life cycle framework. The practical knowledge will facilitate the development of TOC theoretical model that could simulate acquisition design decisions impact on maintenance, sustainment, and manning life cycle costs. For instance, the simulation could measure the design, maintenance, sustainment, and operation activities of specific submarine combat and weapon technologies embedded in the Virginia Block IV combat control room, including all personnel, departments, divisions, equipment, workloads, operating conditions, maintenance mean time between failures, and so on. By simulating the interactions between humans and certain key pieces of equipment, it is possible to identify “tipping points” and sensitivities that represent the most relevant factors contributing to monetary costs, performance, readiness, and so on. These outcomes will serve as the foundation for subsequent efforts, culminating in a set of best practices and analytical methodologies that will dramatically improve Navy-wide design and procurement, with reduced TOC and increased readiness.

References

• Department of Defense. Instruction. Operation of the Defense Acquisition System. 12 May 2003. DoDI 5000.2.

• US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part IV, Chapter 144, Section 2434

• Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, DODI 5000.02, 08 Dec 2008.

• Manpower Planning Systems, SECNAVINST 5312.10C, 29 Oct 1974

• Interim Policy and Procedures for Strategic Manpower Planning and

Development of Manpower Estimates, 10 Dec 2003

• Navy Total Force Manpower Policies Procedures, OPNAVINST 1000.16, 22

Aug 2007

• Manpower Determination Methodology (The Process), December 2003

ONR BAA Number 11-031 12

• US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part IV, Chapter 139, Section 2366, Major systems and munitions programs: survivability testing and lethality testing required before full-scale production, 03 Jan 2007

7. Point(s) of Contact -

Questions of a technical nature shall be directed to the cognizant Technical Point of Contact, as specified below:

Office of Naval Research ONR Code 342, Room 1045 ATTN: William “Kip” Krebs, Ph.D.

875 N. Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-1995 e-mail: william.krebs@navy.mil

Questions of a business nature shall be directed to the cognizant Contract Specialist, as specified below:

Business Point of Contact:

Emily McLaughlin Senior Contracting Officer ONR Code BD 0254 One Liberty Center 875 North Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995 Email Address: Emily.j.mclaughlin@navy.mil

Questions of a security nature should be submitted to:

Diana Pacheco Information Security Specialist Office of Naval Research Security Department, Code 43 One Liberty Center 875 North Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995 Email Address: diana.pacheco@navy.mil

Note: All UNCLASSIFIED communications shall be submitted via e-mail. All questions of an UNCLASSIFIED nature to the Technical Point of Contract (POC) shall be sent via e-mail with a copy to the designated Business POC.

Any CLASSIFIED questions shall be handled through the ONR Security POC.

Specifically, any entity wanting to ask a CLASSIFIED question shall send an email to the

ONR BAA Number 11-031 13

ONR Security POC with copy to both the Technical POCs and the Business POC stating that the entity would like to ask a CLASSIFIED question. DO NOT EMAIL ANY CLASSIFIED QUESTIONS. The Security POC will contact the entity and arrange for the CLASSIFED question to be asked through a secure method of communication.

Questions submitted within 2 weeks prior to a deadline may not be answered, and the due date for submission of the white paper and/or full proposal will not be extended.

Answers to questions submitted in response to this BAA will be addressed in the form of an Amendment and will be posted to one or more of the following webpages:

Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPPS) Webpage – https://www.fbo.gov/ Grants.gov Webpage – http://www.grants.gov/ ONR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Webpage – http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Contracts-Grants/Funding-Opportunities/Broad- Agency-Announcements.aspx

8. Instrument Type(s) – Contract, Grants, and other Assistance Agreements

Awards may take the form of Contracts, Grants, and other Assistance Agreements as appropriate. ONR reserves the right to award a different instrument type if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

9. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers - 12.300

10. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Titles - DOD Basic and Applied Scientific Research

11. Other Information

Work funded under this BAA may include basic research, applied research and some advanced research. With regard to any restrictions on the conduct or outcome of work funded under this BAA, ONR will follow the guidance on and definition of “contracted fundamental research” as provided in the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) Memorandum of 24 May 2010.

As defined therein the definition of “contracted fundamental research,” in a DoD contractual context, includes [research performed under] grants and contracts that are (a) funded by Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Budget Category 1 (Basic Research), whether performed by universities or industry or (b) funded by Budget Category 2 (Applied Research) and performed on campus at a university. The research shall not be considered fundamental in those rare and exceptional circumstances where the applied research effort presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense, and where agreement on restrictions have been recorded in the contract or grant.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 14

Pursuant to DoD policy, research performed under grants and contracts that are a) funded by Budget Category 6.2 (Applied Research) and NOT performed on-campus at a university or b) funded by Budget Category 6.3 (Advanced Research) does not meet the definition of “contracted fundamental research.” In conformance with the USD(AT&L) guidance and National Security Decision Direction 189, ONR will place no restriction on the conduct or reporting of unclassified “contracted fundamental research,” except as otherwise required by statute, regulation or Executive Order. For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the prime contractor is restricted research, a subcontractor may be conducting “contracted fundamental research.” In those cases, it is the prime contractor’s responsibility in the proposal to identify and describe the subcontracted unclassified research and include a statement confirming that the work has been scoped, negotiated, and determined to be fundamental research according to the prime contractor and research performer.

Normally, fundamental research is awarded under grants with universities and under contracts with industry. Non-fundamental research is normally awarded under contracts and may require restrictions during the conduct of the research and DoD pre-publication review of such research results due to subject matter sensitivity. Potential Offerors should consult with the appropriate ONR POCs to determine whether the proposed effort would constitute basic research, applied research or advanced research.

As regards the present BAA, the R&D effort to be funded consists of basic and applied research. The funds available to support awards are Budget Categories 1 and 2.

FAR Part 35 restricts the use of Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs), such as this, to the acquisition of basic and applied research and that portion of advanced technology development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. Contracts and grants and other assistance agreements made under BAAs are for scientific study and experimentation directed towards advancing the state of the art and increasing knowledge or understanding.

THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS NOT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TECHNICAL,

ENGINEERING AND OTHER TYPES OF SUPPORT SERVICES.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

The amount and period of performance of each selected proposal may vary depending on the research area and the technical approach to be pursued by the selected offeror.

Total Amount of Funding Program Office expects to Award through the Announcement: $18,000,000

Anticipated Number of Awards: 4-6 awards

ONR BAA Number 11-031 15

Anticipated Range of Individual Award Amounts per Annum: $500,000 - $1,500,000

Anticipated Period of Performance: 5 years

In the case of proposals funded as basic research, ONR may utilize peer reviewers from academia, industry, and Government agencies to assist in the periodic appraisal of performance under the awards, as outlined in ONR Instruction 3966.1. Such periodic program reviews monitor the cost, schedule and technical performance of funded basic research efforts. The reviews are used in part to determine which basic research projects will receive continued ONR funding. Peer reviewers who are not U.S. Government employees must sign nondisclosure agreements before receiving full or partial copies of proposals and reports submitted by the basic research performers.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

All responsible sources from academia and industry may submit proposals under this BAA. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals.

However, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation.

Federally Funded research & Development Centers (FFRDCs), including Department of Energy National Laboratories, are not eligible to receive awards under this BAA.

However, teaming arrangements between FFRDCs and eligible principal bidders are allowed so long as they are permitted under the sponsoring agreement between the Government and the specific FFRDC.

Navy laboratories and warfare centers as well as other Department of Defense and civilian agency laboratories are also not eligible to receive awards under this BAA and should not directly submit either white papers or full proposals in response to this BAA.

If any such organization is interested in one or more of the programs described herein, the organization should contact an appropriate ONR POC to discuss its area of interest. The various scientific divisions of ONR are identified at http://www.onr.navy.mil/. As with FFRDCs, these types of federal organizations may team with other responsible sources from academia and industry that are submitting proposals under this BAA.

University Affiliated Research Centers are eligible to submit proposals under this BAA unless precluded from doing so by their Department of Defense UARC contracts.

Teams are also encouraged and may submit proposals in any and all areas. However, Offerors must be willing to cooperate and exchange software, data and other information in an integrated program with other contractors, as well as with system integrators, selected by ONR.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 16

Some topics cover export controlled technologies. Research in these areas is limited to “U.S. persons” as defined in the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) – 22 CFR § 1201.1 et seq. (See Section VII, Other Information)

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, requires that all agencies establish requirements for recipients reporting information on subawards and executive total compensation as codified in 2 CFR 170.110. Any company, non-profit agency or university that applies for financial assistance (either grants, cooperative agreements or other transaction agreements) as either a prime or sub-recipient under this BAA must provide information in their proposal that describes the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements identified in 2 CFR 170.220 and Appendix A. Entities are exempt from this requirement UNLESS in the preceding fiscal year, it received: a) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenue in Federal contracts (and subcontracts), loans, grants (and subgrants), and cooperative agreements; b) $25 million or more in annual gross revenue from Federal contracts (and subcontracts), loans, grants (and subgrants), and cooperative agreements; and c) the public does not have access to information about the compensation of the senior executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Application and Submission Process -

White Papers are required prior to submitting a Full Proposal. The Navy’s initial evaluation of the White Papers should give Offerors some indication of whether a Full Proposal would likely result in an award. Initial Navy evaluations of the White Papers will be issued via E-mail notification. Detailed technical and cost proposals will be subsequently encouraged from those Offerors whose proposed technologies have been identified through the above-referenced E-mail as being of “particular value” to the Navy. However, any such encouragement does not assure a subsequent award.

2. Content and Format of White Papers/Full Proposals -

White Papers and Full Proposals submitted under the BAA are expected to be unclassified. However, confidential/classified proposals are permitted. Contracts or other instruments resulting from a classified proposal will be unclassified.

Unclassified Proposal Instructions:

Unclassified White Papers and Full Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with this Section IV. Application and Submission Information.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 17

Classified Proposal Instructions:

Classified White Papers and Full Proposals shall be submitted directly to the attention of ONR’s Document Control Unit at the following address and marked in the following manner:

OUTSIDE ENVELOPE (no classification marking):

“Office of Naval Research Attn: Document Control Unit ONR Code 43 875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-1995”

The inner wrapper of the classified White Paper and/or Full Proposal should be addressed to the attention of the TPOC, ONR Code 34 and marked in the following manner:

INNER ENVELOPE (stamped with the overall classification of the material) Office of Naval Research ONR Code 342, Room 1045 ATTN: William “Kip” Krebs, Ph.D.

875 N. Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-1995 e-mail: william.krebs@navy.mil

An ‘unclassified’ Statement of Work (SOW) must accompany any classified proposal.

Proposal submissions will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.207, applicable law, and DoD/DoN regulations. Offerors are expected to appropriately mark each page of their submission that contains proprietary information.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Titles given to the White Papers/Full Proposals should be descriptive of the work they cover and not be merely a copy of the title of this solicitation.

a. WHITE PAPERS

White Paper Format

Paper Size – 8.5 x 11 inch paper Margins – 1 inch Spacing – single or double-spaced Font – Times New Roman, 12 point Number of Pages – No more than 9 single-sided pages (excluding cover page and resumes). White Papers exceeding the page limit may not be evaluated.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 18

Copies – Electronic (email) submissions should be sent to the attention of the TPOC at: (william.krebs@navy.mil). The subject line of the email shall read “ONR BAA 11-031 White Paper Submission.” The white paper must be a Microsoft Word or .PDF format attachment to the email.

NOTE: 1) Do not send hardcopies of White Papers (including facsimiles) as only electronic submissions will be accepted and reviewed; 2) Do not send .ZIP files; 3) Do not send password protected files.

White Paper Content

Cover Page – The Cover Page shall be labeled “PROPOSAL WHITE PAPER,” and shall include the BAA number, proposed title, Offeror’s administrative and technical points of contact, with telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and Internet addresses, and shall be signed by an authorized officer.

Technical and Operational Concept – One page summary of the technical ideas for the proposed research, the project objectives, the concept of operation for the new capabilities to be delivered, and the expected operational performance improvements.

Three page technical rationale and approach which contains arguments to substantiate claims made in the summary of technical ideas and is consistent with the summary of deliverables and the summary of the schedule and milestones for the proposed research. A plan for demonstrating and evaluating the operational effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed products or processes in field experiments and/or tests in a simulated environment should be included.

Deliverables – One page summary of the deliverables associated with the proposed research.

Schedule and Milestones – One page summary of the schedule and milestones for the proposed research, including rough estimates of cost for each year of the effort and total cost.

Key Personnel – One page listing of key personnel along with the approximate percentage of time to be expended by each person during each contract year.

Qualifications – Two page concise summary of the qualifications of key personnel.

ONR BAA Number 11-031 19

b. FULL PROPOSALS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRACT, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND

OTHER TRANSACTION AGREEMENTS (Does not include Grants)

NOTE: Submission instructions for BAAs issued after FY2010 have changed significantly from previous requirements. Potential Offerors are advised to carefully read and follow the instructions below. The new format and requirements have been developed to streamline and ease both the submission and review of proposals. Both the Template and the Spreadsheet have instructions imbedded into them that will assist in completing the documents. Also, both the Template and the Spreadsheet require completion of cost-related information – both documents must be fully completed to constitute a valid proposal.

All proposals must use ONR's Technical and Cost Proposal Template and Cost Proposal Spreadsheet. The Template can be found by following this link:

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Contract-Grants/submit-proposal/contracts-proposal/cost-proposal.aspx.

Please note that all the attachments listed in Section III.8 of the Template can be incorporated into the Template file for submission.

The Cost Proposal Spreadsheet can be found by following this link:

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Contracts-Grants/submit-proposal/contracts-proposal/cost-proposal.aspx. Click on the "proposal spreadsheet" link and save a copy of the spreadsheet. Instructions for completion have been embedded into the spreadsheet. Any proposed options that are identified in the Technical and Cost Proposal Template, but are not fully priced out in the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet, will not be included in any resulting contract or other transaction.

For proposed subcontracts or interorganizational transfers over $150,000, Offerors must provide a separate fully completed Cost Proposal Spreadsheet in support of the proposed costs. This spreadsheet, along with supporting documentation, must be provided either in a sealed envelope with the prime's proposal or via e-mail directly to both the Program Officer and the Business Point of Contact at the same time the prime proposal is submitted. The e-mail should identify the proposal title, the prime Offeror and that the attached proposal is a subcontract, and should include a description of the effort to be performed by the subcontractor. Offerors should also familiarize themselves with the new subcontract reporting requirements set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards. Starting March 1, 2011, any newly awarded subcontract must be reported if the prime contract award amount was $25,000 or more. The pertinent requirements can be found in Section VII, Other Information, of this document.

Offerors should submit one (1) original, plus two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD-ROM. Offerors shall follow the Technical and Cost Proposal Template. The

ONR BAA Number 11-031 20 electronic Technical and Cost Proposal should be submitted in a secure, .pdf compatible format, save for the electronic file for the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet which should be submitted in a Microsoft Excel 2007 compatible format. All attachments should be submitted in a secure, .pdf compatible format.

The secure pdf compatible format is intended to prevent unauthorized editing of the proposal prior to any award. A password should not be required for opening the proposal document, but the Government must have the ability to print and copy text, images, and other content. Offerors may also submit their Technical and Cost Proposal in an electronic file that allows for revision (preferably in Microsoft Word) to facilitate the communication of potential revisions. Should an Offeror amend its Technical and Cost Proposal package, the amended proposal should be submitted following the same hard and electronic copy guidance applicable to the original proposal.

The electronic submission of the Excel spreadsheet should be in a "useable condition" to aid the Government with its evaluation. The term useable condition indicates that the spreadsheet should visibly include and separately identify within each appropriate cell any and all inputs, formulas, calculations, etc. The Offeror should not provide value only spreadsheets similar to a hard copy.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR GRANTS

The offeror must use the Grants.gov forms from the application package template associated with the BAA on the Grants.gov web Site located at http://www.grants.gov/. If options are proposed, the cost proposal must provide the pricing information for the option periods; failure to include the proposed costs for the option periods will result in the options not being included in the award. Assume that performance will start no earlier than three (3) months after the date the cost proposal is submitted. A separate Adobe .pdf document should be included in the application that provides appropriate justification and/or supporting documentation for each element of cost proposed.

To attach the technical proposal in Grants.gov, download the application package

-Click on "Research and Related Other Project Information" -Click on "Move form to Submission List" -Click on "Open Form" -You will see a new PDF document titled "Research & Related Other Project Information" -Block 7 is the Project Summary/Abstract -> click on "Add attachment" and attach the project summary/abstract. (You will not be able to type in the box, therefore, save the file you want to attach as Project Summary or Abstract).

-Block 8 is the Project Narrative -> click on Add attachment and attach the technical proposal. (Save the file as Volume I- Technical Proposal since you will not be able to type in the box).

ONR BAA Number 11-031 21

Full Proposal Format - Volume 1 - Technical and Volume 2 - Cost Proposal

• Paper Size - 8.5 x 11 inch paper

• Margins - 1 inch

• Spacing - single-spaced

• Font - Times New Roman, 12 point

• Number of Pages - Volume 1 is limited to no more than 17 pages. Limitations within sections of the proposal, if any, are indicated in the individual descriptions shown below. The cover page, table of contents, resumes and current and pending project and proposal submissions information are excluded from the page limitations. Full Proposals exceeding the page limit may not be evaluated. There are no page limitations to Volume 2.

• Copies - the full proposal should be submitted electronically at http://www.grants.gov as delineated in paragraph 5 below.

Full Proposal Content

Volume 1: Technical Proposal

• Cover Page: This should include the words "Technical Proposal" and the following:

1. BAA number BAA 11-031;

2. Title of Proposal;

3. Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors, if applicable;

4. Technical contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address)

5. Administrative/business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address) and;

6. Proposed period of performance (identify both the base period and any options, if included);

7. Signature of Authorized Representative.

• Table of Contents: An alphabetical/numerical listing of the sections within the proposal, including corresponding page numbers.

• Technical Approach and Justification: The major portion of the proposal should consist of a clear description of the technical approach being proposed.