RFPP Contested Logistics_10 Mar 25.pdf

Request for Prototype Proposals (RFPP)

Enhanced Contested Logistics Software Prototype Development

Issued by:

Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) 3307 Wells Road

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Request Issue Date: March 10, 2025

Submission Deadline: March 26, 2025 - 2:00 PM Eastern Time

RCCTO RFPP Enhanced Contested Logistics Software Prototype Development

Table of Contents

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Procedures

1.4 Non-Government Personnel

1.5 Points of Contact

1.6 Response Dates

2.0 Award Information

2.1 Funding

2.2 Instrument Type

2.3 Project Award Value

2.4 Period of Performance

2.5 Potential Places of Performance

3.0 Proposal Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 Prototype Proposals

3.2 Format of Prototype Proposals

3.3 Content of Prototype Proposals

3.4 Prototype Proposal Approach

3.5 Submission of Prototype Proposals

3.6 Solution Presentation

4.0 Evaluation Information

4.1 Prototype Proposal Evaluation Criteria

4.2 Offeror Exchanges

5.0 Award Information

6.0 Other Information

6.1 Follow-On Production

6.2 Security & Anti-Terrorism Operations Security (AT-OPSEC)

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) is issuing a competitive Request for Prototype Proposals (RFPPs) with the intent of awarding one (1) or more Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype (OTAP) in accordance with (IAW) 10 U.S.C. § 4022.

Only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) are eligible to submit a proposal.

1.2 Project Description

RCCTO, working with its stakeholders, including the Contested Logistics (CL) Cross Functional Team (CFT), has identified several gaps in current logistics systems that could be ameliorated with improved Machine Learning (ML)/Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tools. The gaps below are gleaned from the CL CFTs draft Abbreviated-Capability Development Document (A-CDD) for Platform Predictive Logistics, Army Futures Command, and are presented to assist in requirements definition for this planned effort.

• Need to improve fuel distribution logistics by providing visibility into operational and tactical distribution needs, ensuring units are adequately supplied before the Line of Departure (LD). Logistics software to optimize the Class III (CLIII) Bulk distribution using government-provided data to account for ground-delivery capacity shortfalls and recommend best use of ground assets combined with other distribution (air, rail, other) techniques.

• Need to enhance the mobility and operational readiness of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and Command Posts by optimizing supply chain management and ensuring timely delivery of CLIII and Class V (CLV) supplies to the Division Support Areas.

• Need to maintain the readiness of combat platforms with advanced data systems by leveraging predictive maintenance and real-time monitoring capabilities. Data provided by Army will allow for recommendation of Class IX (CLIX)Distribution.

RCCTO has identified improved logistics, including in-transit visibility and predictive maintenance, as a need for its Human Machine Integrated Formations (HMIF) initiative This HMIF effort is a current focus area and RCCTO is leading a multi-agency effort to procure, test, integrate and field a robotic and autonomous set of capabilities that will define future unmanned combat, including enhanced logistical software applications/operations.

RCCTO requires a CL software solution that is a framework, that could be used throughout the enterprise and be available for other developers and the Army to build upon. This requirement is not for a basic or applied research and development type, it seeks a solution with a mature TRL6+ Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at project close-out, a more advanced prototype solution in current or slightly modified configurations able to conduct a system development demonstration and delivery (SDD) aimed at meeting the requirements outlined herein.

CL software solutions will optimize Army supply chain management to enhance mobility and increase the operational readiness of BCTs. CL solutions will utilize visualization, ML, intelligence planning, and AI in an open development framework.

The CL system software will utilize advanced AI methods to allow users to execute complex requests against vast, interconnected data sets using natural language and minimal input. It should utilize deep learning models like Large Language Models (LLMs) and Knowledge Graphs. The objective of applying knowledge graphs and LLMs to government-provided data sets will address the known gaps in contested logistics operations. The use of LLMs will be shown to enhance data analysis by enabling the software to process and analyze large volumes of logistics data, providing actionable insights such as predicting potential supply chain disruptions and optimizing resources.

1.3 Procedures

Key milestones are listed in Table 1 and described in more detail below.

Table 1 RFPP Release Date 10 March 2025 RFPP Questions Cut-off Date 17 March 2025 Prototype Proposal Due Date 26 March 2025

As stated above, only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store CUI are eligible to submit a proposal. The SOW will support the creation of the proposal content. Offerors shall submit a proposal in accordance with the submittal instructions contained in Section 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. Companies without an active Sam.Gov registration or CAGE Code, or related Vendor errors, will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or proposal submissions.

Upon receipt of proposals, the Government will evaluate submitted proposals IAW the specified Evaluation Criteria, Section 5.1, to determine which submitted proposal(s) represent the most advantageous solution to the Government. At that time, the Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation from any Offeror that submitted proposals or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous proposed solution. Offerors that submitted proposals that are not selected for award may not be notified until after award.

All documents necessary for the review and evaluation of proposals shall be provided as described in this RFPP.

1.4 Non-Government Personnel

Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-Government advisors in the review and evaluation of proposals. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition. The non-Government advisors will be required to submit to the Government a Non-Disclosure Agreement reflecting the effort(s) that they will be supporting.

The Offeror’s submission of a proposal under this RFPP indicates concurrence with the aforementioned use of non-Government advisors.

Radiance Technologies, Inc.

310 Bob Heath Drive, Huntsville, AL 35806, POC: Sean Dempsey sean.e.dempsey.ctr@army.mil Work: (256)-704-3400 Cell: 760-717-5651

MITRE

7515 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102, POC: Ed Van Giezen evangiezen@mitre.org Work: 703-983-6000 Cell: 703-209-1186

Apex Sourcing, LLC 14941 Serene Shores, Brandenton, FL 34211 POC: Gregory L. Davies Gregory.L.Davies.ctr@army.mil Work: 443-981-9557 Cell: 443-981-9557

In accomplishing their duties related to the proposal evaluation, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors' proposal. Therefore, these firms may execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will: (1) protect the Offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary; and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each Offeror must contact the above company to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each Offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their proposal, if applicable.

1.5 Points of Contact

All UNCLASSIFIED questions regarding proposal submissions must be emailed to ALL of the following personnel:

1. Kendra N. Taylor, kendra.n.taylor2.civ@army.mil

2. Tessa Asana-Monique Jones, tessa.a.jones.civ@army.mil ,

1.6 Response Dates

Offerors must submit CAGE Code and Sam.Gov registration information as part of their submittals on their cover page. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code or Sam.Gov information, or related Vendor errors will not be a basis for extensions of time. All questions regarding this RFPP shall be submitted via email no later than 1400 ET on 17 March 2025 to the points of contact listed in Section 1.5. All contacts listed in Section 1.5 must be included in the email. It is preferred that only mailto:tessa.a.jones.civ@army.mil one set of questions be submitted by each Offeror instead of submitting multiple sets of questions.

Questions received by the Government after 1400 ET on 17 March 2025 may not be answered prior to the closing date/time for receipt of proposal submissions. Questions submitted by any method other than email will not be accepted or answered. The Government will post responses to all questions received and any amendments issued as a result of submitted questions.

All proposals must be received no later than 1400 ET on 26 March 2025 by the POCs listed in Section 1.5. All contacts listed in Section 1.5 must be included in the email. It is the responsibility of the submitting party to confirm receipt of submissions.

2.0 Award Information

2.1 Funding

The Government reserves the right to consider all, some, or none of the proposals received in response to this RFPP for selection of award. The Government reserves the right to cancel this RFPP at any time for any reason or for no reason. Issuance of this RFPP does not commit the Government to pay for any preparation costs incurred by the contractor in compiling a response to any aspect of this RFPP. All potential Offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice, and any award is subject to the availability of funding.

2.2 Instrument Type

The preferred instrument type is an OTAP awarded as firm fixed price (FFP), with travel as a cost reimbursable line item. This contract type allows for fixed payable milestones based on the agreed-upon milestone payment schedule. If a fixed-amount instrument type is not reasonable or feasible, vendors must submit a written justification explaining why a fixed-amount instrument type is not reasonable or feasible. Upon acceptance of the justification, an expenditure-based instrument type or hybrid instrument type may be negotiated. An expenditure-based or hybrid instrument will contain a payable milestone schedule with amounts to be adjusted based on information generated from financial or cost records. Funding arrangements are at the discretion of the Government.

2.3 Project Award Value

Offerors should provide a price proposal that is commensurate with the proposed level of effort to complete the proposed approach and meet the requirements of the SOW as outlined herein.

2.4 Period of Performance

The period of performance of the anticipated OTAP is 20 months after contract award.

2.5 Potential Places of Performance

Fort Shafter, Hawaii Huntsville, Alabama Wiesbaden, Germany

Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland Other travel locations and places of performance as required or directed

3.0 Proposal Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 Prototype Proposals

RCCTO is issuing the subject RFPP to solicit a proposal with the intent of awarding a prototype project OTA in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022. A prototype project is a project that is directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense (DoD), or to improvement of platforms, systems components, or materials in use by the armed forces. The scope must include research, development, demonstration, validation or transition (including training) of the prototype technology and be directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022, and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

3.2 Format of Prototype Proposals

Offerors shall submit the proposal IAW the following:

1. Number of Pages: The proposal is limited to 9 pages plus 1 page for company information coversheet (maximum of 10 pages) for technical approach, 1 page for summary of vendor qualifications and experience history, 1 page for the proposed milestone payment schedule, and 1 page for the proposed program schedule. The proposal cover sheet, cost volume and data rights assertions are not included in the page limit. Pages submitted in excess of the proposal page limit will not be read or evaluated.

2. Number of Copies & Format: One (1) electronic copy of the response and cover sheet.

3. Text & Font Format: Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8½ x 11-inch paper, with a minimum of one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Font size shall be of minimum 12-point font. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text no less than 9-point font that is easily readable.

4. Security: Do not lock or encrypt any files uploaded as part of your white paper submission. Any locked or encrypted files will not be read or evaluated.

5. Use of a diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is encouraged.

6. 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 include the following sentences on the cover page:

“This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government, except to non-Government personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this submission. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Offeror as a result of -- or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent agreed upon by both parties in the resulting agreement. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.”

7. Questions regarding the objectives or preparation of the proposal should be addressed to the POC’s listed in Section 1.5.

3.3 Content of Prototype Proposals

The Offeror’s proposal submittal must include the following:

1. Cover Sheet (one page maximum)

Offerors shall provide the following information on the cover sheet:

a. Organization Information: name, mailing address, technical POC, phone number, e-mail address, CAGE code, and Unique Entity ID (UEI)

b. Business POC, phone number, and e-mail address

c. Self-Certification of Offeror: (select all that apply)

(1) Small business

(2) Large business

(3) Academic institution

(4) Non-traditional defense contractor (see definition below)

(5) Other

Non-traditional defense contractor is defined in 10 U.S.C. § 3014 as an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.

3.4 Prototype Proposal Approach

The Offeror will ensure its proposal adequately describes the proposed technical approach, capabilities and resulting contributions. The proposal shall include the following sections in the order given below, as applicable:

1. Technical Approach: Describe how the proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete and is supported by a technical team that has the expertise and capabilities to accomplish the proposed tasks and deliverables in the GSOW. The following must be addressed:

a. Utilize the GSOW, Enclosure 1, as the basis for developing the solution. The proposed solution must fully comply with all the requirements of the GSOW.

The GSOW may be modified after the evaluation of proposals and before award to reflect updated Army requirements and the GSOW will be converted to a final SOW that will be incorporated in the final OTAP.

b. Project approach to meeting objectives and scope. Present approach for development and/or enhancement of the proposed logistics software suite in meeting or exceeding the objectives and requirements identified herein and the GSOW Enclosure 1. This includes the ability to accomplish the proposed concept using the resources, and key participants within program timelines. This includes a review of the proposed manpower structure and proposed schedule for transition of systems to the effort.

c. Proposed current and projected capabilities of the Offeror’s CL software products and competencies to include performance data.

d. Capability to incorporate and utilize the Army’s standards for maintenance data pertaining to HMIF.

e. Use of middleware harness that allows for rapid adoption and ingestion of existing and future Army logistics and command system data sources.

f. Capability to utilize an open visualization framework.

g. Utilization of deep leaning models, to include LLMs.

h. Predictive analytics capability.

i. Ability of proposed solution to meet or exceed TRL 6 by project completion.

j. Demonstrated capability of predictive accuracy of logistic disruption 85% or higher.

k. Ability to integrate with various open-source data and intelligence sources (e.g. social media, reputable news feeds, weather forecasts, etc.) and demonstrate a capability to merge them into a standardized API that allows new resources to be incorporated with minimal development effort.

l. Ability to integrate with Army logistics and command systems (e.g., EBS, Global Command and Control System – Army (GCCS-A), Command Post Computing Environment (CPCE)) and gather and utilize data from such systems.

m. Overview of tasks and methods planned to achieve each objective and the final product delivery in accordance with the SOW.

n. Identify particular approaches the Offeror will take to ensure successful completion within the clear schedule constraints (e.g., opportunities to accelerate schedule.)

o. Identify and assert any restrictions on the Government's use, release, or disclosure of technical data or computer software pertaining to its proposal submission IAW the instructions provided in Exhibit A below. If the offeror has no restrictions for a particular section then it shall state “none.” All assertions (including entries of “none”) shall be signed by an authorized representative of the offeror. If all assertions are contained on one page, one signature is sufficient. If the assertions are separated, each assertion shall be signed (separately) as required. The offeror's assertions, including the assertions of its subcontractors or suppliers or potential subcontractors or suppliers, shall be submitted in the required format, dated, and signed by an official authorized to contractually obligate the offeror. The offeror shall provide a detailed discussion of the degree to which asserted data rights restrictions, as well as any proposed option(s) for additional data rights, affect the proposed technical solutions and the Government’s ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose the resulting technical data and computer software for Government purposes as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(12) and DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(11). Note: The data rights assertions are not subject to the page limit specified for this part of the proposal.

2. Schedule and Milestone Payment Plan/Schedule:

a. The proposal must include a detailed timeline, including technical milestones and a schedule of deliverables. Payments will be made in accordance with the proposed Milestone Payment Schedule. The milestones on the Milestone Payment Schedule shall be based on meaningful and identifiable events and associated deliverables (monthly reports are not acceptable milestones). Payment will be made when those deliverables are accepted by the Government, and at no other time. As such, if an offeror is expecting to be paid monthly, then the proposal must include a Milestone Payment Schedule detailing meaningful monthly deliverables (e.g., incremental code drops, test results, etc.). The proposer should take this into account when planning their schedule.

3. Price:

a. Use the Price workbook, provided as Enclosure 2 to this RFPP, to provide the proposed price broken out by cost element (labor, material, travel, ODCs) and profit, and mapped to the proposed Milestone Payment Schedule.

b. The proposal must include a detailed breakout of how the money will be spent and how prices and rates were determined. Direct and indirect rates must be justified based on past commercial or Government rates, or by providing examples of equivalent rates for equivalent talent. If rates are based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or Department of Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) negotiated rates, the rate agreements shall be provided.

c. If travel is required, provide a buildup of costs (e.g. number of days/trips, number of travelers, destinations to/from).

d. The Government prefers that all traditional defense contractors/large businesses, nontraditional defense contractors/small business prime contractors, and academic institutions propose some degree of cost share.

4. Qualifications and Experience (one page maximum)

a. Limited to the past three (3) years, related prior or current work, identify Offeror’s roles and responsibilities:

Related prior or current work, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contracts and Independent Research & Development (IR&D) projects related to the development and integration of CL software effort similar in scope and complexity to GSOW. Previous efforts to develop logistical software solutions similar to those directed in the GSOW, but for non-military uses may also be considered related. Provide contract numbers and POCs for any Government sponsored efforts. Identify team member role assignments and each team member's qualifications and experiences in comparison to the respective GSOW performance requirement(s) and deliverables the team members are proposed to perform.

If the Offeror is a NDC or proposes the use of one or more NDCs, the following information is required for the NDC and for each participating NDC:

(1) Legal Name, CAGE code and UEI. Active Sam.Gov registration data/dates.

(2) Explanation of how proposed NDC meets 10 U.S.C. § 3014 definition

(3) Contribution to the effort, based on at least one of the following factors:

• Supplying new key technology or products

• Causing a material reduction in the cost or schedule; and/or

• Creating a material increase in performance

b. Identify key technical and management personnel proposed to execute the program.

Facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed software development and testing effort. Provide evidence of a quality control process that identifies defects in software products involving controlling, reviewing, and testing the software to identify any issues, bugs, or defects that may impact it functionality or performance

3.5 Submission of Prototype Proposals

Information and dates regarding questions about, and submission of, proposals are stated above in Section 1.6.

Late submissions will not be accepted, and any other failure to comply with proposal submission instructions (content, approach, page count, etc.) may not be evaluated by the Government.

3.6 Solution Presentation

The Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation, either in person or virtually, from all Offerors or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous proposed solution(s).

4.0 Evaluation Information

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the price and will evaluate whether the proposed price reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives. Offerors shall describe the labor mix and labor hours necessary in sufficient detail to give evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s approach and to allow evaluations to determine the realism of the offered figures to accomplish the effort. Concurrent to this evaluation, the Government will ensure that the technical proposal accurately reflects the full breadth of the project, including properly addressing the Government CDRLs, deliverables, tests, and specific tasks, and milestones required to successfully complete the prototype project. As needed, the Government may negotiate with the Vendor to adjust the GSOW, price and other terms before award.

If agreement cannot be reached with the Offeror whose proposal is initially assessed to present the most advantageous technical approach, the Government will evaluate the technical submittal and price for the proposal of the Offeror with the next best technical solution. If additional funding subsequently becomes available, and funding of additional awards becomes possible, the Government will evaluate Cost/Price for the proposal of the Offeror(s) with the next best technical solution(s). The Government expects and plans to award one (1) OTAP for this CL requirement.

4.1 Prototype Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal on three (3) Technical Factors: Technical Approach, Schedule/Milestone Payment Schedule, and Experience/Qualifications. The Technical Approach is weighted significantly higher than both the Schedule/Milestones Payment Schedule and Experience/Qualifications, which are equally weighted. Ultimate selections by the RCCTO AO will be on the best value trade off continuum. Each evaluation criterion other than price, by itself, is more important than price. Each evaluation criteria other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The selection decision for award of this prototype project will be determined using the evaluation criteria and relative order of importance as stated in this RFPP. The Government will award to the most highly rated Offeror based on the Technical Factors and price.

1. RFPP Evaluation Criteria #1: Technical Approach

a. The Government will evaluate acceptability of the Offeror's capability and approach to accomplish the technical objectives and tasks of the GSOW as well as address the elements and questions outlined in Section 3.4. To be assessed as acceptable, the response must:

(1) Present a sound understanding of the overall objectives and technologies involved as demonstrated by a feasible, executable, and comprehensive approach to satisfying the objectives, tasks, and deliverables of the GSOW and effective approaches for identifying, eliminating and mitigating risks.

(2) Proposed approach to develop, test and deliver the proposed logistics software suite prototype.

(3) The evaluation of this criteria will also consider the degree to which asserted data rights restrictions, as well as any proposed option(s) for additional data rights, affect the proposed technical solutions and the Government's ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or disclose the resulting technical data and computer software for Government purposes as defined in DFARS 252.227- 7013(a)(12) and 252.227-7014(a)(11) in terms of demonstrating its ability to execute the proposed approach.

2. RFPP Evaluation Criteria #2 – Schedule and Milestone Payment Plan/Schedule

Whether the proposed program schedule is realistic and executable for the proposed technical approach to the extent appropriate and reflects an understanding of the GSOW.

The Government will conduct an independent risk assessment against the proposed schedule provided by the Offeror ensuring that critical project milestones have been included and are supported. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meeting TRL-6 or higher at the end of the performance period or before. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed milestone payment schedule for clarity, logical sequencing, reasonableness, , and achievability.

Present task schedule, key milestones, projected timelines and proposed critical path(s) consistent with the proposed technical approach to ensure delivery no later than 20 months after award.

3. RFPP Evaluation Criteria #3: Qualifications and Experience

The Government will assess the acceptability of the Offeror's qualifications and experience for accomplishing all requirements. To be assessed as acceptable, the response must:

a. Present relevance of related prior or current work experience in developing and delivering logistics software using AL/ML technologies in similar size and scope of the Army’s large, complex logistics environment.

b. Present effective team member role assignments in terms of each team member's qualifications and experiences in comparison to the respective GSOW performance requirement(s) the team members are proposed to perform and reflect team member qualifications and experiences that ensures comprehensive coverage of all GSOW performance requirements and deliverables.

c. Identify sufficiently qualified key technical and management personnel to successfully execute the proposed technical approach and support SOW performance requirements.

The assessment of key personnel will consider the extent to which proposed key technical and management personnel qualifications relate to the SOW performance requirements.

d. Propose facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed effort and meet or exceed required tolerances and precisions, as well as meeting security requirements and identification of available licenses, certifications, and/or permits that are required to meet the objectives of the GSOW.

4. RFPP Evaluation Criteria #3 – Price

a. This Evaluation Criteria evaluates the proposed price and whether the proposed price is realistic and affordable for the proposed technical approach to the extent appropriate and whether the proposed price generally reflects an understanding of the Government’s requirements as outlined in the GSOW.

4.2 Offeror Exchanges

Once the Government determines that a proposal submittal represents the most advantageous solution based on all evaluation criteria identified in Section 5.2, the Government reserves the right to engage with only that Offeror to address remaining issues, either orally or in writing if necessary, and finalize an agreement with that Offeror. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror with the next best solution based on the original evaluation and to address any remaining issues with that Offeror. Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best solution, no further engagements with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after the agreement has been awarded. The process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a prototype agreement is awarded.

5.0 Award Information

Awards of prototype projects as a result of this announcement will be in the form of an OTAP. To receive an award, the Offeror(s) must be in compliance with the statutory requirements at 10 U.S.C. § 4022.

To receive an award, an Offeror must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and must have a UEI number. This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the right party. The Offeror must be considered a responsible party by the Agreements Officer, must not be suspended or debarred from such agreement by the Federal Government, and must not be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order or law from receiving such award.

6.0 Other Information

6.1 Follow-On Production

The authority at 10 U.S.C. § 4022, paragraph (f) provides the authority to enter into awards for follow-on production to successful participants of an agreement under the authority of a OTAP utilizing competitive procedures. This effort anticipates the need for possible follow-on production.

The requirement for competition has been met through the RFWP process, and upon successful completion of the prototype project and subject to the availability of funds, the Government reserves the right to proceed into a production Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract or production OTA on a non-competitive basis. This prototype project will be deemed completed and successful upon the result of the system characterization, as the Government determines.

6.2 Security & Anti-Terrorism Operations Security (AT-OPSEC)

1. Certain aspects of work performed under this prototype project will be done at the CUI level.

2. CUI generated and/or provided under this prototype project shall be safeguarded and marked as specified in DoDM 5200.01, Vols 1-4.

3. AT Level I Training. All contractor employees, including subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities, and controlled-access areas shall complete AT Level I awareness training within 30 calendar days after the contract start date or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable.

The contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected contractor employee and subcontractor employee, to the Agreement Officer Representative (AOR) or to the contracting officer, if a AOR is not assigned, within 30 calendar days after completion of training by all employees and subcontractor personnel. AT Level I awareness training is available at the following website: http://jko.jten.mil

4. Access and General Protection Policy and Procedures. Contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees shall provide all information required for background checks to meet installation access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. Contractor workforce must comply with all personal identity verification requirements (FAR clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel) as directed by DoD, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and/or local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) at any individual facility or installation change, the Government may require changes in contractor security matters or processes.

http://jko.jten.mil/

5. For Contractor not eligible for CAC but requires access to DoD facility or installation.

Contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees shall comply with adjudication standards and procedures using the National Crime Information Center Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III) and Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) (Army Directive 2014-05/AR 190-13), applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by Government representative), or, at OCONUS locations, in accordance with status of forces agreements and other theater regulations.

6. iWATCH Training. The contractor and all associated sub-contractors shall brief all employees on the local iWATCH program (training standards provided by the requiring activity). This locally- developed training will be used to inform employees of the types of behavior to watch for and instruct employees to report suspicious activity to the AOR. This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the AOR NLT 30 calendar days after contract award.

7. Army Training Certification Tracking System (ATCTS) Registration for Contractor

Employees who Require Access to Government Information Systems. All contractor employees with access to a Government info system must be registered in the ATCTS at commencement of services and must successfully complete the DoD Information Assurance Awareness prior to access to the IS and then annually thereafter.

8. Requirement for OPSEC Training. Per AR 530-1 Operations Security, the contractor employees must complete Level I OPSEC Awareness training. New employees must be trained within 30 calendar days of their reporting for duty and annually thereafter.

9. Information Assurance (IA)/Information Technology (IT) Training. All contractor employees and associated sub-contractor employees must complete the DoD IA awareness training before issuance of network access and annually thereafter. All contractor employees working in IA/IT functions must comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoDD 8570.01, DoDM 8140.03 and AR 25-2 within six months of appointment to IA/IT functions.

10. Information Assurance/Information Technology Training Certification. Per DoDM

8140.03, DFARS 252.239.7001 and AR 25-2, the contractor employees supporting IA/IT functions shall be appropriately certified upon contract award. The baseline certification as stipulated in DoDM 8140.03 must be completed upon contract award.

11. Threat Awareness Reporting Program. For all contractors with security clearances. Per

AR 381-12 Threat Awareness and Reporting Program (TARP), contractor employees must receive annual TARP training by a counterintelligence agent or other trainer as specified in 2-4b.

12. Technical data and reports produced as a result of this prototype project will be marked

DISTRIBUTION D. Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (Administrative Use) (20 May 2016). Request to disseminate this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, ATTN: SAAL-RCC, Building 3307 Wells Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898.

13. CUI is information the Government creates or possesses, or that an entity creates or possesses for or on behalf of the Government, that a law, regulation, or Government-wide policy requires or permits an agency to handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls.

However, CUI does not include classified information (see definition above) or information a non-executive branch entity possesses and maintains in its own systems that did not come from, or was not created or possessed by or for, an executive branch agency or an entity acting for an agency. Law, regulation, or Government-wide policy may require or permit safeguarding or dissemination controls in three ways: Requiring or permitting agencies to control or protect the information but providing no specific controls, which makes the information CUI Basic; requiring or permitting agencies to control or protect the information and providing specific controls for doing so, which makes the information CUI Specified; or requiring or permitting agencies to control the information and specifying only some of those controls, which makes the information CUI Specified, but with CUI Basic controls where the authority does not specify.

14. Mark submitted documents appropriately, including pages which contain sensitive, proprietary, or CUI.