Request for White Paper W15P7T-25-R-NGC2.pdf

REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS (RWP)

NEXT GENERATION COMMAND AND CONTROL (NGC2)

W15P7T-25-R-NGC2

PROGRAM MANAGER NGC2

U.S. ARMY PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE COMMAND, CONTROL,

COMMUNICATIONS, AND NETWORK (PEO C3N)

Agency: Department of the Army Office: Army Contracting Command, DC3oE Location: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA Program Office: Program Manager Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2) RWP Number: W9128Z-25-R-NGC2 Date Issued: 16 May 2025 Proposals Due: 1100 hours, Eastern Time, 02 June 2025

1. Through this Request for White Paper (RWP), Program Manager NGC2 seeks rapid iteration, integration, and delivery of a scalable prototype architecture as described in the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO). Any resultant award(s) may be issued as a prototype Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 4022. Any concept/technology/solution successfully completed through a Prototype OTA can be transitioned to follow-on production in accordance with Sections 6 and 7 of Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) W15P7T25S0001.

2. The Government may award up to three (3) OTAs for Team Lead solutions. For the purposes of this RWP, the “Team Lead” is a designated entity in the proposal that is responsible for the successful integration and delivery of the full proposed NGC2 architecture. The Government reserves the right during SOW collaboration to change sources of capabilities and/or components specified in the proposed NGC2 architecture. Vendors may submit partial solutions focused on a specific capability of the SOO for consideration by the Government.

3. Awards depend upon the availability of funds and fulfillment of requirements and priorities determined to exist at the time of award. In some cases, funding priorities may change as emerging technologies arise. Award(s) may also be dependent upon demonstration by the vendor that they have adequately addressed the requirements. Only a warranted Agreements Officer may obligate the U.S. Government to the expenditure of funds for awards under this Announcement.

4. The U.S. Government does not fund preparation of proposals or support work efforts or tasks that are inferred from discussions with technical project officers. The vendor will not be reimbursed for any costs incurred prior to the effective date of the agreement, including costs associated with preparing, developing, submitting, and/or negotiations related to White Papers (WPs) and/or Prototype Proposals.

5. There are certain post-employment restrictions on former Federal officers and employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 207 and FAR 3.104-3(d). If a vendor believes a post-employment restriction or conflict of interest exists, the vendor shall notify the Agreements Officer as soon as possible.

6. The Government is prohibited from soliciting and awarding actions to awardees that have engaged in or are suspected to have engaged in criminal, fraudulent, or seriously improper conduct.

7. To receive an award, vendors must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have a Unique Entity Identification (UEI). Vendors are advised to commence SAM registration upon receipt of a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) and must maintain registration in SAM throughout Step 2 of the CSO process. Vendors are required to maintain registration in SAM throughout the period of performance of the prototype project and during any subsequent follow-on production award.

RWP, Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP), and Award Process:

Step 1 – WP Upon receipt of a WP submitted in response to this RWP, the Government will evaluate the WP.

Discussions among the parties, whether verbally or in writing, may occur. Upon completion of WP evaluations, vendors will either:

o Receive a non-selection letter, o Be invited to submit a full proposal under Step 2, or, o Be invited to enter into negotiations directly (Step 3).

The Government reserves the right to limit the number of vendors invited to submit a Prototype Proposal. As such, a vendor’s solution may be evaluated to be of merit but not invited to submit a Proposal. WPs that are chosen for the Step 2 Prototype Proposal will be notified in writing as soon as practicable.

Step 2 – Prototype Proposal (Proposal) WPs evaluated to be of interest will be provided a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP); receipt of an RPP does not guarantee the vendor will receive an award. The Government will evaluate Proposals. Discussions among the parties, whether verbally or inwriting, may occur. Upon completion of Proposal evaluations, awards may be made. The Government reserves the right, at any point prior to award of an OTA, to cancel the RPP. The Government reserves the right to not fund or make award to any or all Prototype Proposals. Awards are dependent on the availability of funds. Vendors are advised to commence SAM registration upon receipt of an RPP and must maintain registration in SAM throughout the CSO process.

Step 3 – Prototype OTA Award

1. Upon favorable review and available funds, the Government may choose to make one or more awards. Awards will be made using OTAs. The Agreements Officer will negotiate directly with the vendor on the terms and conditions of the OTA agreement, including payments, and will execute the OTA on behalf of the Government. Only an Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into or modify a binding OTA on behalf of the Government.

2. To receive an award, vendors must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have a Unique Entity Identification (UEI). Vendors are required to maintain registration in SAM throughout the period of performance of the prototype project and during any subsequent follow-on production transaction or contract.

3. Vendors must also register in the prescribed Government invoicing system (i.e. Wide Area Workflow).

4. The vendor shall be determined to be responsible by the Agreements Officer and must not be suspended or debarred from award by the Federal Government nor be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order and/or law from receiving an award.

OTA Prototyping Phases:

The Government is notionally planning for up to three (3) phases in performance of an OTA awarded in response to this RWP. These phases may be exercised in sequential order or non-sequential order. The Government reserves the right to award any/all phases of the OTA to multiple vendors.

Phase 1: Initiation (not to exceed (NTE) three (3) months from award) Phase 1 provides the Government the opportunity to evaluate the proposed teaming approach with a mechanism for government involvement, agile execution, and emergent solution architecture against access processes and procedures for integration of the solution. This phase may include direct engagement with an Army unit or Army labs to initiate prototyping activity.

Phase 2: Application(s) Integration (NTE nine (9) months from award) This phase provides the Government the opportunity to evaluate the ability to integrate third party applications, microservices, and/or Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) models.

Iteration of the prototype solution and backlog management continues in this phase to ensure efficient project progress while also onboarding/supporting third parties.

Phase 3: Network Integration (NTE sixteen (16) months from award) This phase provides the Government the opportunity to evaluate the ability to integrate the solution into the tactical network and tactical infrastructure while further iterating on the prototype solution.

Step 1 – White Paper

WP Submission:

1. WPs shall be submitted via Joint Communications Marketplace (JCM). JCM registration will close three business days before the WP submission deadline.

If you have not registered for JCM, please use the following link <https://jtnc.experience.crmforce.mil/JTNC/s/register>. You will need a Joint Certification Program (JCP) number and Data Custodian to enter the NGC2 community and view CUI documents. If you do not already have a JCP Certification number, please follow the direction below.

To gain access to CUI documents, your company/entity must be certified by the Joint Certification Program (JCP). Your entity/company’s Data Custodian requester (designated) on block 3A of the DD Form 2345 is the only authorized individual that can download the controlled attachment. Your entity/company is responsible for the protection of the controlled document after the download. If your entity/company is not pre-certified by the JCP, you will need to apply for certification by completing a DD Form 2345 and emailing it to jcp-dmin@dla.mil.

Detailed information regarding the JCP application procedures is available at the JCP website at https://www.dla.mil/Logistics-Operations/Services/JCP/. The ESI Directorate and the Army Contracting Command (ACC) will not review the JCP application or issue the JCP certification. No exceptions will be made to vendors who are not certified in the JCP for the release of the controlled document. Please direct any questions regarding the JCP certification process to jcp-admin@dla.mil.

2. WP submissions shall be received by the Government no later than (NLT) 1100 Eastern

Time (ET) 02 June 2025. If a complete WP submission is not submitted by submission time, the vendor’s WP will not be considered or evaluated.

3. WPs shall be submitted as UNCLASSIFIED or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Government team will handle this material as CUI category “Proprietary Business Information” (PBI). WPs containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall follow the instructions in the Commercial Solutions Opening W15P7T25S0001 Subsection 3.1 paragraph 5.

4. Proposals, brochures, or other descriptions of general organizational or individual capabilities will not be accepted as a WP. WP submissions shall include sufficient detail or otherwise will not be considered.

5. Requirements: See attached Statement of Objectives (SOO).

6. Vendor name, cage code, UEID, and associated JCP certification number shall be clearly stated in the WP. A vendor’s WP will not be considered or evaluated without a current JCP certification number.

7. Pages containing text shall be typed using the standard letter size (8.5 x 11) in Microsoft

Word. The architectural diagram shall be landscape and may use up to 11 x 17” size paper.

WP Content:

The vendor shall propose a feasible and innovative approach demonstrating how the vendor’s prototype and potential production solution will be implemented in alignment with Attachment 0001 – Prototype SOO requirements. Vendors may submit partial solutions focused on a specific capability of the SOO for consideration by the Government. All proposed approaches shall also consider all applicable cost, schedule, and performance risks.

Government Furnished Information (GFI) will be provided via Joint Communications Marketplace

(JCM).

Each vendor shall provide four (4) volumes:

1. Technical Volume (Ten (10) page limit including a one (1) page initial architectural diagram.

The architectural diagram shall be landscape and may use up to 11 x 17” size paper.)

In response to Attachment 0001 – Prototype Statement of Objectives (SOO), the vendor’s Technical Volume shall:

a. Identify solution partners/teammates, the role of the Government, and components provided, including a description of the approach to manage the emergent reference architecture throughout prototyping.

b. Describe the mechanism for Government involvement in any adjustments to teaming arrangements throughout prototype development and delivery.

c. Describe -aaS offerings and components proposed, alignment to the appropriate layer depicted in the Notional NGC2 Data-Centric Architecture (Figure 1 of the SOO), and what the Government would need to provide to enable vendor operation, including identification of any assumed Government dependencies related to the services.

d. Describe how a third party developer adds a component service or application to the architecture, including the supporting role of the vendor.

e. Describe agile development approach (DevSecOps) to include how third party developers add components and applications.

f. Identify any commercial license products included in the architecture.

g. Assumption: Team Lead may establish Public Prive Partnership (P3) with ECMA (or other government agency) to cover compute/store costs or other larger enterprise components of the solution.

h. Assumption: The total Period of Performance shall not exceed 16 months.

i. Assumption: The solution, once complete, shall be structured to scale to one (1) Army

Division with all downtrace and enabling units, and may include Corps Headquarters as well.

j. Assumption: The Government will receive unlimited rights to the emergent reference architecture. This includes the initially proposed architecture and each iteration of update throughout prototyping.

2. Affirmation of Business Status Certification Volume (No page limit) The Team Lead shall include a separate Affirmation of Business Status Certification form (Attachment 0002 – Affirmation of Business Status Certification) for each company/vendor participating in the prototype project.

3. Estimated Price/Schedule Volume (No page limit)

The vendor shall provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) price and notional schedule for how the proposed concept may be prototyped within the Department of Defense (DoD).

4. Data Rights Assertions Volume (No page limit) The Government is seeking unlimited rights to the emergent reference architecture in order to competitively reprocure, maintain, and/or sustain the proposed deliverables from a third party (other than OEM) in the future. The vendor shall identify all proposed intellectual property restrictions in WPs. Vendors who do not provide unlimited rights to the emergent reference architecture shall propose an alternative approach the Government can use to competitively reprocure, further develop, maintain, and/or sustain the proposed deliverables. The vendor shall also clearly articulate how the Government could reasonably execute the approach.

Please note that the Government reserves the right to evaluate negatively any proposed approach that provides less than unlimited rights for the emergent reference architecture and/or does not facilitate competitive reprocurement, further development, maintenance, and/or sustainment of the proposed deliverables.

WP Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the vendor’s WP approach complies with the below criteria. All evaluation factors are of equal importance.

Technical Volume The Government will evaluate:

1) Relevance of the WP in addressing the RWP

2) Vendor’s approach and/or underlying technology is unique, underutilized and/or innovative

3) Technical merit and feasibility of the solution to address Government RWP

Affirmation of Business Status Certificate Volume The Government will evaluate the Affirmation of Business Status Certificate Volume for compliance with WP instructions.

Estimated Price/Schedule Volume The Government will evaluate the ROM price and notional schedule for compliance with the prototype phases.

Data Rights Assertion Volume The Government will evaluate the impact of data rights assertions on the Government’s ability to competitively reprocure, further develop, maintain, and/or sustain the proposed deliverables using third parties.

Step 2 – Proposal

Proposal Submission:

1. Proposals shall be submitted as UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. The Government team will handle this material as CUI category “Proprietary Business Information” (PBI). Proposals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall follow the instructions in the Commercial Solutions Opening W15P7T25S0001 Subsection 3.1 paragraph 5.

2. Proposal submissions shall be received by the Government no later than the time and date identified in the RPP letter. If a complete Proposal submission is not submitted by submission time, the vendor’s Proposal will not be considered or evaluated. Note: The Government reserves the right to provide additional information to vendors within the RPP letter.

3. Proposal submission shall be identified with a Subject Line of the vendor’s name and RWP Title in accordance with the RPP letter.

4. The RPP letter will provide additional specific information and details regarding proposal submissions.

Proposal Content:

The Government will provide vendors whose WPs were evaluated to be of interest with an RPP.

Proposals shall only be submitted in response to an RPP.

Each Proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes: Volume 1 – Technical and Volume 2 – Price.

Vendors may propose their own internal terms and conditions (e.g., Service License Agreements (SLA) and/or End User License Agreements (EULAs)) to be considered during negotiations with the Government. Vendors should note that there are certain terms and conditions the Government is unable to accept. However, OTAs are flexible to adopt customary industry standards where it is otherwise legal and where it meets the Government’s needs.

For each teaming partner referenced in the vendor’s WP, the vendor may be required to submit proof of teaming arrangements during the evaluation phase by the government. Acceptable proof includes a subcontract agreement, commitment to subcontract agreement, service provider agreement, and/or license agreement. Agreements and letters shall be dated in the 2025 calendar year to be determined acceptable.

1. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal The vendor shall ensure their Volume 1 – Technical Proposal address the following statutory requirements are met:

Meets definition of a prototype in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022 Quantity is limited to that needed to prove technical or manufacturing feasibility or evaluate military utility Meets mission effectiveness (i.e., directly relevant to enhancing DoD mission effectiveness) Meets non-traditional participation/cost share requirement in that the non-traditional defense contractor contributes to a significant extent or not; if not, 1/3 cost share implementation is addressed

Defense Utility (solution is applicable to a DoD platform, system or component)

The Volume 1 – Technical Proposal shall include:

a. Proposed Draft Statement of Work (SOW) The SOW shall include a title page inclusive of the following information:

Vendor and any subcontractors or team member’s Company Name, Point of Contact (POC) Name and Title, Date, E-Mail Address, Phone, and Address

If registered in SAM.gov, include the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and UEI code

The SOW shall be aligned to the SOO identifying the work to be performed and the deliverables. The development of a final, agreed upon SOW will be a collaborative effort between the vendor and the Government. The SOW shall provide a detailed project schedule that outlines the various phases of work to be accomplished within the proposed period of performance.

The SOW shall also identify government support required, if any, the vendor requests of the Government such as facilities, equipment, data, and information or materials.

b. Oral Presentation Slides Oral Presentations will be used to present Elements 1 through 4 (identified below).

PowerPoint slides are permitted to support the vendor’s live oral presentations. Any slides or material not presented in the vendor’s allotted time will be removed from the presentation and disregarded by the Government. The Government reserves the right to remove any material that is illegible. Only the slides presented during the Oral Presentation will be evaluated.

c. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Vendors shall submit a Certification, and if applicable, a Mitigation Plan. There is no page limit for the Certification and Mitigation Plan, which may be submitted as one document.

Certification: Vendors shall certify that they have conducted a thorough review of their organization to identify all actual or potential OCIs situations with itself, subcontractors, partners, or any other vendor as it applies to this RPP. Vendors shall include the results of this review by identifying all actual or potential OCI situations and include a Mitigation Plan as detailed below or include a statement affirming that there are no known actual or potential OCIs. The certification must be signed by an authorized representative of the vendor.

Mitigation Plan: For all actual OCIs identified, the vendor shall provide a Mitigation Plan outlining the steps the vendor has/will take to address, manage, and/or neutralize the identified OCIs. For all potential OCIs identified, the vendor shall provide a Mitigation Plan outlining steps the vendor has/will take to avoid and/or neutralize potential OCIs.

The Agreements Officer will schedule oral presentations for the vendors; dates/times will be provided via email with a minimum of 7 calendar days in advance of the presentation date. The Government intends to conduct these presentations in a hybrid setting, both in person and virtually via Microsoft Teams. The Government anticipates the Agreements Officer, Agreements Specialist, Legal Counsel, and the Evaluation Team members will be in attendance for the presentations. The Agreements Officer retains sole discretion to require, invite or allow other Government personnel to attend.

The Government’s intention is for the participants in the oral presentation to be significant contributors to the performance of the team during OTA execution. Vendors are limited to no more than four (4) personnel for each team member company in attendance, whether in-person or virtually, and no more than twelve (12) total personnel in-person.

Each vendor will be allotted a not to exceed 2-hour window to conduct their presentation. The oral presentation schedule will be as follows:

Introductions Presentation of Element 1 – Team Lead and Team Composition

- Methods and approach demonstrate knowledge of technical landscape/engineering processes, accounts for risks, and actively manages team members/relationships with a proposed mechanism for Government involvement.

Presentation of Element 2 – Data Layer

- Deployment in a container runtime environment independent of the other platform components

- Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) compliance

Presentation of Element 3 – Platform

- Design enables integration of third party and government common services and applications

- Design demonstrates initial common/core components

- Describes the supporting role of the Team Lead in third party development of applications and services

- MOSA compliance

- Singular design is container native (cloud and edge)

- Utilization of agile development

Presentation of Element 4 – Applications

- Supports container-native applications

Conclusion

Vendors may not electronically record any part of the oral technical presentation process. The Government will record the oral presentation in whole. This presentation will be available to the Government only.

The Government reserves the right to ask follow-up questions during and after the oral presentation. Vendors should be prepared to provide clarifications and additional information as requested by the Government evaluators. The Government may engage in a dialogue with vendors to better understand their proposed solutions and to address any concerns or ambiguities. Vendors shall build in time for Government questions and responses into their presentation time window.

Vendors need to be prepared to provide prompt clarifications and additional information during and after the oral presentation.

2. Volume 2 – Price Proposal The Vendor shall propose a total price, broken down by phase/milestone, to complete the effort, as well as provide any other data or supporting information necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price. This can include, but is not limited to, commercial price catalog or other proprietary information to help the Government assess the reasonableness of the project price.

Proposals shall not include any pass-through fees or overhead costs for purchasing hardware.

The Vendor shall include full production considerations such as:

Licensing (leveraging existing EULAs, SLAs) Scalability (e.g., consumption/usage/customer satisfaction models rather than per-unit pricing) Training and support costs of users Identification of any costs absorbed by the vendor during the prototype phase that will become the Government’s responsibility in full production.

Proposal Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the vendor’s Proposal as follows:

All evaluation factors are of equal importance

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which the proposed solution enhances and/or accelerates innovative development contributing toward mission accomplishment.

b. Technical merit of the proposal with an emphasis on innovative solutions.

c. Technical maturity, feasibility, and achievability.

d. As applicable, the degree to which a defined commercialization path or strategy exists.

e. The adequacy of the proposal performance schedule.

f. Statutory requirement is met:

Meets definition of a prototype in accordance with 10 U.S.C .§ 4022 Quantity is limited to that needed to prove technical or manufacturing feasibility or evaluate military utility Meets mission effectiveness (i.e., directly relevant to enhancing DoD mission effectiveness) Meets non-traditional participation/cost share requirement in that the non-traditional defense contractor contributes to a significant extent or not; if not, 1/3 cost share implementation is addressed

Defense Utility (solution is applicable to a DoD platform, system or component)

Volume 2 – Price Proposal The Government will evaluate:

a. Price is fair and reasonable in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 3453(d).

b. If applicable, the 1/3 cost-share requirement is met.

OTA Award:

Upon favorable review and available funds, the Government may choose to make up to three awards to the vendors whose proposals are determined to:

1. Meet the statutory requirements (Volume 1 – Technical Proposal, paragraph f above),

2. Provide Technical Proposal that is technically sufficient given the criteria in Volume 1- Technical Proposal paragraphs a. through e.

3. The proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Before awarding an OTA, the Government will review and evaluate the vendor’s OCI submission.

If the vendor submitted a Mitigation Plan, it must be approved by the Agreements Officer. Before withholding an OTA award due to OCI(s) that cannot be adequately mitigated or avoided, the Agreements Officer may notify the vendor and allow the vendor a reasonable opportunity to respond.