BAA3 FY24-SP800024BBAA3 Qualification Authority.pdf

SP8000-24-B-BAA3

NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE (NDS)

QUALIFICATION RESEARCH

Broad Agency Announcement National Defense Stockpile Qualification Research

DLA STRATEGIC MATERIALS SP8000-24-B-BAA3

SP8000-24-B-BAA3

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND

2. AREAS OF INTEREST

3. CORRESPONDENCE

4. DUE DATES

5. GENERAL QUAD CHART AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

6. GENERAL WHITE PAPER INSTRUCTION

7. EVALUATION AND DISPOSITION OF WHITE PAPERS

8. SMALL BUSINESS / SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

9. TECHNICAL AND PRICE PROPOSALS

10. EVALUATION FACTORS

11. EVALUATION RATINGS

12. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

EXHIBIT A: SAMPLE FORMAT OF STATEMENT OF WORK

EXHIBIT B: SAMPLE STATEMENT OF WORK

EXHIBIT C: PAST PERFORMANCE REFERANCES…

SP8000-24-R-BAA3

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) FOR DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) STRATEGIC

MATERIALS QUALIFICATION

POINT OF CONTACT (POC):

C. Isha Arrington, Contract Specialist DCSO-C3

Andrew T. McNamara Building 8725 John J. Kingman Road Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 Email:

DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil

1. BACKGROUND

DLA Strategic Materials is charged with acquiring and retaining stocks of strategic and critical materials, as well as encouraging the conservation and development of domestic sources of such materials, to decrease and preclude a dangerous and costly dependence by the United States upon unreliable foreign sources or a single point of failure for supplies of such materials during a National Emergency.

As part of our efforts to encourage conservation and development of domestic sources of strategic and critical materials, DLA Strategic Materials sponsors materials research and development, pursuant to section 98g of title 50, United States Code (U.S.C.). DLA Strategic Materials intends to expand this work, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 98h-6(a)(3), to qualify existing domestic facilities and domestically produced strategic and critical materials to meet defense and essential civilian requirements when existing domestic sources of supply are insufficient or vulnerable to a single point of failure.

The purpose of this BAA is to insert domestically produced materials from reliable sources to substitute for materials produced by foreign sources or sole source producers. Interested firms are encouraged to determine if they have products or production processes pertaining to the materials listed in the “Areas of Interest” of this BAA. Submission of responses for other strategic and critical materials or classes thereof is encouraged if the respondent considers it of interest to Department of Defense (DoD) programs of record.

DLA Strategic Materials’ need for this BAA stems from the rapidly expanding requirement to stabilize and restore strategic and critical materials supply chains compromised by diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS). In many cases, DMSMS constraints are self-imposed by the defense acquisition process; namely, drop-in replacement, substitute, or qualitatively better strategic and critical materials are available, but DoD cannot accept these materials because DoD has not qualified such materials for use in defense systems. Qualification of substitute strategic and critical materials represents a substantial cost-avoidance to DLA Strategic Materials, reduces dependence upon unreliable foreign sources, and improves the overall health and competitiveness of the defense industrial base.

This BAA is issued under the provisions of FAR 35.016 and 6.102(d)(2). This BAA is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to make an award or pay proposal preparation prices generated in response to this announcement. Please see below for how to submit a white paper and, if later invited to, a proposal.

No contract award will be made unless funds are available. Only a duly warranted Contracting DLA anticipates requesting proposals from multiple offerors. While a single award of approximately $3,000,000.00 is possible, multiple awards for much smaller amounts are more likely. No award is expected to have a period of performance greater than three years, with a not mailto:DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil to exceed value of $3,000,000.00 per contract. The Government may not pay the full proposed cost or the Government may pay a percentage of the proposed cost for any future acquisitions under an Broad Agency Announcement.

2. AREAS OF INTEREST

Strategic and critical materials classes of interest for qualification research under this BAA are the following:

a. Energetic Materials:

i. Materials and production processes that increase the range, lethality, or safety of propellants, pyrotechnics, explosives, and initiating compositions used in ammunition1.

ii. Materials and production processes that decrease the weight of ammunition.

iii. Materials and production processes that eliminate or decrease the use of hazardous materials in ammunition.

iv. Material and production process substitutes and / or drop-in replacements to relieve a single point of failure in a supply chain, dependence upon unreliable foreign sources of supply, or replacement of a legacy / obsolete material.

b. Energy and Power Materials:

i. Materials that increase the energy density or safety of batteries in weapon systems, National Security Space systems, or commercial items incorporated into components utilized by a DoD program of record.

ii. Material and production process substitutes and / or drop-in replacements to relieve a single point of failure in a supply chain, dependence upon unreliable foreign sources of supply, or replacement of a legacy / obsolete material.

c. Aeronautical and Astronautical Materials:

i. Metals, alloys, fibers, composites, or processes (e.g., heat treat) for such materials that would allow for new material systems to be used in existing aerospace applications.

ii. Materials and production processes (e.g., additive manufacturing) that achieve current design requirements with a reduction in production steps or lead time.

iii. Materials that combine thermal or solar conductivity with improved impact protection, transparency, or ultra-violet protection

iv. Material and production process substitutes and / or drop-in replacements to relieve a single point of failure in a supply chain, dependence upon unreliable foreign sources of supply, or replacement of a legacy / obsolete material.

d. Armor Materials:

i. Materials, including textiles, that decrease the weight of armor systems with like or improved ballistic performance.

ii. Materials, including textiles, that combine ballistic protection with other forms of defense (e.g., chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear)

iii. Material and production process substitutes and / or drop-in replacements to relieve a

e. Stable Isotopes:

i. Materials and production processes that increase the safety or efficiency of nuclear reactor coolant and waste storage systems.

ii. Material and production process substitutes and / or drop-in replacements to relieve a

f. Paints, Coatings, and Surface Treatments

i. Materials that improve corrosion resistance or provide like corrosion resistance with a decrease in weight, coating thickness, surface treatments, or use of hazardous materials.

ii. Materials with combined protection capabilities (e.g., ultra-violet, chemical, electro-magnetic) to reduce the weight or thickness of coatings or reduce the number of required coatings.

iii. Material and production process substitutes and / or drop-in replacements to relieve a

1 For the purpose of this BAA, “ammunition” is defined as (1) small arms, mortar, automatic cannon, artillery, and ship gun ammunition;

(2) bombs; (3) unguided rockets, projectiles, and submunitions; (4) chemical ammunition as permitted by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Convention; (5) land mines; (6) demolition material; (7) grenades; (8) flares and pyrotechnics; (9) guided projectiles, rockets, missiles, and submunitions; (10) naval mines, torpedoes, and depth charges; (11) cartridge and propellant-actuated devices; (12) chaff and chaff dispensers; (13) guidance kits for bombs and other ammunition; (14) swimmer weapons; (15) explosive ordnance disposal tools; and (16) related ammunition containers and packaging materials.

3. CORRESPONDENCE

All correspondence and questions on this BAA, including requests for information on how to submit a quad chart, white paper or proposal as well as submission of the same should be directed to DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil. Please reference BAA number SP8000-24-B-BAA3 in all correspondence and communications.

4. DUE DATES

This BAA remains open from 31 March 2024 to 30 March 2026. White papers may be submitted from the date of opening through 31 December 2025 and will be reviewed and evaluated as received. White papers submitted after 31 December 2025 will not be considered. After review of white papers, DLA may request parties to submit proposals. Each proposal request will include the date the proposal is due. Any accepted white papers and/or proposals not awarded by 30 March 2026 will not be eligible for any award under this

BAA.

5. GENERAL QUAD CHART SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Offerors shall submit an unclassified Quad Chart, in Microsoft PowerPoint format and landscape orientation, to DLA Strategic Materials electronically to DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil. A Quad Charttemplate can be found at the Federal Business Opportunity website, FY2019 DLA Broad Agency Announcement, on the right hand side column, titled "Appendix 1 - Quad Chart Format”. The Quad Chart should be formatted as stated and include the following information:

- Heading (Arial 24pt Bold): Title of Proposed Project

-- Company’s name, CAGE code, and SAM Unique Entity Identifer (UEI)

-- SP8000-24-B-BAA3

- Upper Left Quadrant (Header Arial 14 pt Normal /Text Arial 12pt Normal): Picture or graphic illustrating

- Lower Left Quadrant (Header Arial 14 pt Normal /Text Arial 12pt Normal):

-- Contribution to the Requirement -- Project objectives and scope -- Key personnel, facilities/equipment -- Related prior or current work

- Upper Right Quadrant (Header Arial 14 pt Normal /Text Arial 12pt Normal):

-- Contribution to the Requirement -- How the proposal contributes and addresses the requirement -- How the proposal will transition to existing military systems or programs

-- Technology / Manufacturing Readiness Level (TRL) (current level and anticipated level at project completion)

- Lower Right Quadrant: (Header Arial 14 pt Normal /Text Arial 12pt Normal):

-- Cost and Schedule

-- Estimated costs -- Major activities/milestones to include transition and/or deployment events

-- Deliverables and metrics/measures of success -- Potential risks

DLA Strategic Materials intends to utilize the Quad Chart for the purposes of efficiently describing the scope of an Offeror’s proposal. The Quad Chart shall not be used for the purposes of evaluating a proposal; however, Offerors that do not submit a Quad Chart will not be eligible for award.

Virus Check: The Offeror will be required to perform a virus check before uploading the Quad.

Chart. If a virus is detected, DLA Strategic Materials will reject the file, and the Offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award.

Security: Do not lock or encrypt Quad Chart files.

6. WHITE PAPER INSTRUCTIONS

Interested parties may submit an unclassified synopsis of their proposal, commonly referred to as “white paper,” free of proprietary information. White papers help minimize industry’s proposal costs as DLA can, early on, deselect efforts having little prospect for award.

DLA will evaluate all timely received white papers conforming with the requirements of this BAA using the criteria described at paragraphs 6 & 7. DLA does not intend to communicate with the submitter during white paper evaluation; however, DLA may do so in DLA’s sole discretion.

After evaluating the white paper, DLA will advise the submitted whether or not DLA invites the submitter to submit a full proposal. Absent DLA advising the submitter otherwise, invited proposals must follow the procedures described below. Proposals submitted outside of this invitation, or not conforming to DLA requirements, will not be considered. Being invited to submit a full proposal does not obligate DLA to award any contract.

DLA will evaluate requested and received proposals conforming to DLA requirements as described in paragraphs 6 & 7. DLA does not intend to communicate with the offeror during proposal evaluation;

however, DLA may do so in DLA’s sole discretion.

If DLA favorably evaluates the proposal, DLA will contact the offeror to open contract award negotiations. Opening negotiations does not obligate DLA to award any contract. Negotiations may also involve DLA requesting the offeror to amend various parts of the offeror’s proposal. Any awarded contract shall be in accordance with applicable law, regulations, and policy. DLA reserves the right to make one, more than one, or no awards under this BAA.

Any responsible source capable of satisfying the Government’s needs may submit a white paper.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) are encouraged to submit white papers and join others in submitting white papers; however, no portion of this BAA shall be set aside for HBCU and MI participation.

Foreign-owned firms’ participation is subject to foreign disclosure review procedures. Foreign-owned firms should immediately contact the contracting focal point for information if they contemplate responding. Foreign participants and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary Non-Disclosure Agreements, Security Regulations, and any other applicable statutes. Some requirements may cover export-controlled technologies. Research in these areas is limited to “U.S. persons” as defined in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR §1201.1.

ANY AWARDEE MUST BE REGISTERED IN THE SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

(SAM) PRIOR TO AWARD, DURING CONTRACT PERFORMANCE, AND THROUGH FINAL

PAYMENT. INFORMATION ON SAM REGISTRATION IS AVAILABLE AT

https://www.sam.gov/.

WHITE PAPER PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

a. Offerors should submit white papers via email directly to the following email address (DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil).

Point of Contract: DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil Cecilia.Arrington@dla.mil

i. White papers must be in the following format but do not require any special forms:

1. Single PDF formatted file as an email attachment

2. Page Size: 8 ½ x 11 Inches

3. Margins – 1 Inch

4. Spacing– Single

5. Font– Times New Roman, 12 point

b. The white paper shall not exceed five pages plus a cover page and a one-page addendum as discussed below. The white paper shall include a title, BAA number, Offeror contact information (primary investigator’s name, phone number, email address, and company address), areas of interest number, technical description of the effort, identification of risks, project duration, preliminary schedule, and not-to-exceed price. A brief abstract with information explicitly pertinent to the proposed work must be provided in the white paper.

No Government furnished information, equipment, property or data will be provided.

c. As an addendum to the white paper, include biographical sketches (one page) of the key personnel who will perform the research, highlighting their qualifications and experience.

d. The price portion of the white paper shall contain a “not-to-exceed” price amount of the proposed project to be completed.

7. EVALUATION AND DISPOSITION OF WHITE PAPERS

a. Evaluation Process: Offerors are advised that invitations for complete proposals will be made on the initial white paper submission and the availability of funding. As stated above, the white paper will be evaluated for the areas of interest, technical description of the effort, mailto:DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil mailto:Cecilia.Arrington@dla.mil identification of risks, project duration, and preliminary schedule. White papers evaluated to have significant merit may be invited to submit a complete detailed proposal.

b. Disposition Process: After completion of evaluation, the Offeror will be notified in writing of the results (via email). The Government may select white papers that are most promising for further consideration.

8. SMALL BUSINESS / SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

PLAN

Large Business concerns will not be required to submit a Small Business / Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan if their white paper is selected for further consideration.

9. TECHNICAL AND PRICE PROPOSALS

The Government reserves the right to request full technical and price proposals from all, some, or none of the white paper submitters. Any such request for full technical and priced proposals does not guarantee award.

The Offeror must mark the proposal with a protective legend in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition.

PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH ALL FORMATTING AND PAGE LENGTH

REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED BELOW WILL BE RATED AS UNACCEPTABLE AND

REJECTED.

The proposal must be submitted in two volumes: Technical Proposal (Volume I) and Price Proposal (Volume II). The volumes shall be separate and complete so that evaluation of each may be accomplished independently. The volumes shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME I)

Technical proposals are limited to thirty (30) single-sided pages as described below. Submission of proposals shall follow the below format. The technical proposal should be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and substantiating the validity of stated claims in the technical proposal. Offerors should assume no prior knowledge of the proposed facilities and experiences. Technical proposals should describe the proposed work in relation to the relevant Area of Interest, contain a business case analysis (BCA) for the project, and discuss how the proposed work would support current DoD acquisition programs.

Technical proposals must be sent and formatted as described below:

(a) Microsoft Word format.

(b) Sized 8.5 x 11 inches except for project Gantt charts which may be sized up to 8.5 x 14 inches.

(c) Headers on each page to identify page content.

(d) Single-spaced.

(e) 12-point Times New Roman font with one inch margins around the page.

(f) Emailed to DCSO-F2Contracting@dla.mil with the subject of the email reading: “[Company]; Technical Proposal; SP8000-24-B-BAA3.”

Technical proposals must be organized as described below.

Table of Contents: The table of contents shall specify, by page number, the location of information requested in these instructions. The Table of Contents does not count toward the 30-page limit.

Section I – Cover Page: The Cover Page shall provide the following information: (1) BAA number; (2) Area of Interest; (3) Proposal Title; (4) Target Implementation; (5) Point of Contact, including name, telephone number, e-mail address, and mailing address (no post office box); (6) Cage Code; (7) Contractor’s business type selected among the following categories: Large Business, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Other Small Business, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, or Other Nonprofit; and (8) Summary of the Prices. The information contained in Section I shall be limited to one page. The Cover Page counts towards the 30-page limit and shall be labeled as Page One.

Section II – Executive Summary: An Executive Summary of the Offeror’s proposed project is required.

This summary shall be used to gain an understanding of the overall proposal contents. It should identify and highlight significant features, summarize innovative claims and unique contribution(s) of the proposal, and include the salient points of the proposed project, including target system applications and the expected outcome improvement associated with the project. The information contained in Section II shall be limited to one page. The Executive Summary page(s) count towards the 30-page limit and shall be labeled as Page Two.

Section III – Statement of Work (SOW): The Offeror is required to submit a proposed SOW which accurately describes the work to be performed, is enforceable, and void of inconsistencies. If, in the Government’s opinion, the Offeror’s SOW does not reflect these requirements, the Government will prepare a SOW using information available in the Offeror’s proposal; this process may delay the award. The SOW must be a separate and distinct part of the proposal. The proposed SOW must contain a summary description of the technical methodology as well as the task description, but not in so much detail as to make the SOW inflexible. The SOW page(s) do not count towards the 30-page limit. The SOW should include the following sections: 1.0 Objective, 2.0 Scope, 3.0 Background, 4.0 Task/Technical Requirements and 5.0 Manpower Reporting for Service Contracts. See exhibit A for sample formatting of SOW and exhibit B for a sample SOW.

Section IV – Detailed Proposal Information: Offerors shall submit a comprehensive and complete technical proposal that demonstrates its ability to perform the area of interest. The technical proposal is expected to contain written and visual material. It must be succinct, well written and presented in a clear straightforward manner. Proposals that merely restate or rephrase the white paper may be considered technically unacceptable and may not be considered further. The technical proposal shall specifically address the six evaluation areas:

(1) Transition from qualification research to DoD programs of record.

(2) Relevance to the area of interest.

(3) Overall scientific and technical merits.

(4) Capabilities, related experience, facilities, or techniques.

(5) Qualifications, capabilities and experience.

(6) Past performance.

The Detailed Proposal Information page(s) count towards the 30-page limit.

Section V – Business Case Analysis: The offeror is required to submit a BCA that will discuss how the Offeror plans to transition materials or production processes from the qualification work undertaken by the BAA to the supply chains of DoD programs of record. This will include discussing the benefits to specific government program offices. Additionally, any information that may assist the government in understanding how this will affect the market should be included.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to include, when possible, official correspondence from a representative of

1) a DoD program of record, or 2) a program of record’s prime contractor or major subcontractor, stating an intent to integrate the proposed material or technology solution into the program. This intent may be conditional upon the success of the proposal’s work (i.e., whether the technology solution meets performance requirements of the program of record and/or dependent on whether the technology is directly integrated into a weapon system).

The Business Case Analysis page(s) count towards the 30-page limit. Any letters of support as described above may be attached to the technical proposal; such letters, themselves, do not count towards the 30-page limit.

Section VI – Deliverables and Schedule: Offerors shall submit a list of deliverables that will be provided to the Government and a schedule for project performance and submittal of deliverables. Note that payment will be commensurate with receipt and approval of deliverable(s). The Deliverables and Schedule page(s) count towards the 30-page limit.

Section VII – Past Performance References: Offerors shall submit a list of past performance references that will be provided to the Government. See exhibit C for sample information. Past Performance References page(s) do not count towards the 30-page limit.

Section VIII – Resumes: Offerors shall include resumes of key personnel. Resumes page(s) do not count towards the 30 page limit.

PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME II)

Price proposals have no page limitation. Offerors shall submit at a minimum the information listed below relating to price.

Table of Contents: The table of contents shall specify, by page number, the location of information requested in these instructions.

Section 1 – Proposal Type and Value: The following information must be provided: type of proposal, brief work effort description, performance period, and total value.

Section 2 – Work Breakdown: The price proposal shall include a work breakdown structure and price data in sufficient detail to support evaluation of reasonableness (e.g. direct labor by categories, indirect labor, indirect prices, travel, subcontract, services, materials, equipment, etc.).

Section 3 – Project Task: The price proposal shall include at a minimum all of the price information listed below.

(a) Direct Labor: Individual labor categories or assigned persons with associated labor hours and unburdened direct labor rates.

(b) Indirect Prices: Fringe Benefit, Overhead, G&A, Price of Money, etc. (base amount and rate).

(c) Travel: Number of trips, destinations, durations, etc.

(d) Material: Equipment, facilities, etc.

(e) Profit dollars and percentage rate.

Section 4 – Other Direct Prices: All other prices associated with the project should be itemized.

Section 5 – Payment Plan Schedule: Provide a proposed monthly invoice payment plan in accordance with the items listed in Section VI – Deliverables and Schedule, in the Technical Proposal.

10. EVALUATION FACTORS

White papers and proposals received because of the BAA will be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a peer or scientific review process. White papers and proposals will not be evaluated against each other.

Initially, DLA will review all timely received white papers and proposals for conformance with the above requirements and any other requirements DLA provided within the invitation. DLA may reject without further evaluation any white papers and proposals failing to meet any of these requirements. DLA may, at its sole option, provide the offeror an opportunity to revise and resubmit such a rejected white papers and proposals; however, DLA is not obligated to provide any offeror an opportunity to resubmit.

Then, DLA will review whether proposed cost or price is within budgetary constraints of the program’s current budget. White papers and proposals outside current budgetary constraints will not be considered further.

White papers and proposals successfully passing the above two threshold questions will be sent to DLA subject-matter and technical experts for technical evaluation. The evaluation criteria are listed below, in descending order of importance.

Factor 1: Transition from Qualification Research to DoD Programs of Record. How likely would the proposed qualification research lead to a DoD program of record, whether directly to the program or indirectly via a prime or major subcontractor, adopting the substitute material?

Factor 2: Relevance to the Area of Interest. From the perspective of one or more DoD programs of record, how relevant is the proposed qualification research to the Area of Interest?

Factor 3: Overall Scientific and Technical Merits. How sound are the proposed engineering and scientific practices towards achieving the proposed qualification research?

Factor 4: Capabilities, Related Experience, Facilities, or Techniques. How likely is the proposed qualification research to succeed given the offeror’s capabilities, related experience, techniques, or unique combinations thereof?

Factor 5: Qualifications, Capabilities and Experience. How likely is the proposed qualification research to succeed given the offeror’s proposed principal researcher/scientist/engineer and other key personnel?

Factor 6: Past Performance. DLA will review the past performance forms submitted in accordance with the above.

This assessment is based on the Offeror’s performance on active and completed contracts supplying the same or similar, either commercially or with the Government. Evaluations of past performance will consider the

Offeror’s ability to meet contract requirements and to provide timely delivery. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

11. EVALUATION RATINGS

The evaluation team will classify proposals into one of the following categories:

Category I: Proposal is well conceived, scientifically and technically sound, pertinent to the program goals and objectives, and offered by a responsible contractor with the competent scientific and technical staff and supporting resources needed to ensure satisfactory program results. The proposal’s BCA presents a clear timeline for delivery of the proposed material or technology solution to a DoD program of record. The DoD program of record and the prime contractor or the relevant major subcontractor to such a program certify their intent to integrate the proposed material or technology solution into the program.

A proposal may satisfy the aforementioned certification with official correspondence from a representative of a DoD program of record and the prime contractor or relevant major subcontractor, with this letter stating the intent to integrate the proposed material or technology solution into the program. This certification of intent may be conditional upon the success of the proposal’s work (i.e., whether the technology solution meets performance requirements of the program of record and/or dependent on whether the technology is directly integrated into a weapon system).

Proposals in Category I are recommended for acceptance (subject to availability of funds) and normally are displaced only by other Category I proposals.

Category II: Proposal is scientifically or technically sound but is of sufficiently low technology or manufacturing readiness that it cannot be readily integrated into a DoD program of record.

The proposal’s BCA may present a clear timeline for delivery of the proposed material or technology solution to a DoD program of record. The DoD program of record or the prime contractor or the relevant major subcontractor to such a program certify their intent to integrate the proposed material or technology solution.

A proposal may satisfy the aforementioned certification with official correspondence from a representative of a DoD program of record and the prime contractor or relevant major subcontractor, with this letter stating the intent to integrate the proposed material or technology solution into the program. This certification of intent may be conditional upon the success of the proposal’s work (i.e., whether the technology solution meets performance requirements of the program of record).

Category II proposals are recommended for acceptance but at a lower priority than Category I proposals.

Category III: Proposal is scientifically or technically sound but is of sufficiently low technology or manufacturing readiness that it cannot be readily integrated into a DoD program of record. Namely, the proposal’s BCA may present a clear timeline for delivery of the proposed material or technology solution to a DoD program of record. Neither the DoD program of record nor the prime contractor or the relevant major subcontractor to such a program certify their intent to integrate the proposed material or technology solution.

Category III proposals are recommended for acceptance but at a lower priority than Category II proposals.

Category IV: Proposal is not technically sound and does not meet the requirements of a DoD program of record, inclusive of the program contractor or major subcontractors to such programs.

Category IV proposals are not recommended for acceptance.

12. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

a. Responsibility Determination: To be eligible for award of a contract, all prospective

Offerors must meet certain minimum standards pertaining to financial resources, ability to comply with performance schedules, have a satisfactory performance record, integrity, organizational structure, experience, accounting and operational controls, technical skills, facilities and equipment and be otherwise qualified. For additional information concerning standards of responsibility for prospective contractors, please refer to FAR Subpart 9.1.

b. System for Award Management (SAM): Successful Offerors not already registered in

SAM will be required to register prior to award of any contract. Information on SAM registration is available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM.

c. Representations and Certifications: The Offeror shall complete and submit

Representations and Certifications via SAM at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM.

http://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM

EXHIBIT A: SAMPLE FORMAT OF STATEMENT OF WORK

The following is offered as the format for the SOW.

1.0 - Objective: This section is intended to give a brief overview of the specialty area and should describe why it is being pursued, and what you are trying to accomplish.

2.0 - Scope: This section includes a statement of what the SOW covers. This should include the technology area to be investigated, objectives/goals, and major milestones for the effort.

3.0 - Background: The offeror shall identify appropriate documents that are applicable to the effort to be performed. This section includes any information, explanations, or constraints that are necessary in order to understand the requirements. It may include relationship to previous, current and future operations. It may also include techniques previously tried and found ineffective.

4.0 - Technical Requirements:

This section contains the detailed description of tasks which represent the work to be performed which are contractually binding. Thus, this portion of SOW should be developed in an orderly progression and in enough detail to establish the feasibility of accomplishing the overall program goals. The work effort should be segregated into major tasks and identified in separately numbered paragraphs according to the decimal system above. Each numbered major task should delineate, by subtask, the work to be performed. The SOW must contain every task to be accomplished.

The tasks must be definite, realistic, and clearly stated. Use “shall” whenever the work statement expresses a provision that is binding. Use “should” or “may” whenever it is necessary to express a declaration of purpose.

Use “will” in cases where no Offeror requirement is involved; e.g., power will be supplied by the Government. Use active voice in describing work to be performed.

Do not use acronyms or abbreviations without spelling-out acronyms and abbreviations at the first use; place the abbreviation in parenthesis immediately following a spelled- out phrase. This provides the definition for each subsequent reuse. As an option, a glossary may contain definitions of acronyms and abbreviations.

If presentations/meetings are identified in your schedule, include the following paragraph in your SOW:

“Conduct presentations/meetings at times and places specified in the contract schedule.”

5.0 - Manpower Reporting for Service Contracts: This section is a mandatory reporting requirement of the

Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD) at DLAD 37.103(e).

EXHIBIT B: SAMPLE STATEMENT OF WORK

1.0 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort is to investigate: (a) techniques for generating code for High Performance Computers (HPCs); (b) technology that connects transformed variants of programs, crucial to debugging and performance analysis; and (c) exploitation of HPCs by software environments.

2.0 SCOPE: The scope of this effort is to develop technology for building integrated computational environments for high performance systems and distributing a set of advanced computational software tools based on this technology that demonstrates the ability to achieve improved performance on current HPC computers.

3.0 BACKGROUND:

3.1 High performance computing and computer communications networks are increasingly important to scientific advancement, economic computation, and national security. The technology is reaching the point of having a transforming effect on our society, industries, national defense, and educational institutions. The goal of the High-Performance Computer and Communication (HPCC) program is to accelerate significantly the commercial availability and utilization of the next generation of high-performance computers and software.

3.2 The key is by aggressively pursuing research in parallel compilers, object parallel computing, and intelligent performance optimization to deliver revolutionary advances in computational software tools. An ideal computational software environment will ultimately depend on a pervasive understanding of the relationship between parallel programming methodology, parallel compiler transformations, parallel object implementation, and system performance characteristics.

4.0 TASKS/TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:

4.1 Design and implement a Code Generator (CG) for a high-performance computer. The CG shall include the design of initial data structures.

4.2 Develop an execution analysis infrastructure to debug and study the performance of compiled programs without having to understand the transformations caused upon the program by the compiler, which includes:

4.2.1 Implementation of connections between existing front ends and intermediate representation.

4.2.2 Implementation of connections from serial profile data to intermediate representation.

4.2.3 Develop technology to utilize the power of HPC on the computational tasks to develop a general HPC design environment which includes:

4.2.3.1 Tools for serial machines to be automatically scheduled on nodes of an HPC.

4.2.3.2 Interfaces for automatic scheduling of tools that are specifically designed to be executed on HPCs; and,

4.2.3.3 Integrating the CG from paragraph 4.1.1.

4.3 Identify HPC community members with relevant applications to experiment with the ALPHA version of the CG from paragraph 4.1.1 and the general HPC design environment from paragraph 4.1.3.

5.0 Reporting.

5.1 Continually determine the status of the effort and report progress toward accomplishment of contract requirements. (See CDRL, A001)

5.2 Continually determine the status of funding required for contract performance. (See CDRL, A002)

5.3 Document all technical work accomplished, and information gained during the performance of this acquisition. This shall include all pertinent observations, nature of problems, positive as well as negative results, and design criteria established, where applicable; also, procedures followed, processes developed, "Lesson Learned", etc. The details of all technical work shall be documented to permit full understanding of the techniques and procedures used in evolving technology or processes developed.

Separate design, engineering, or process specifications delivered during this acquisition shall be cross-referenced to permit a full understanding of the total acquisition. (See CDRL, A003)

SP8000-22-R-BAA3

EXHIBIT C: PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES

Please identify no more than three companies/Government agencies you have worked with in the prior three years concerning work of similar size and scope. DLA Strategic Materials may contact these companies/agencies to obtain a reference for your company.

1. PROJECT 1:

a. Work Performed:

b. Name of Company/Agency:

c. Dollar Value:

d. Point of Contact:

e. Telephone Number:

f. E-Mail Address:

2. PROJECT 2:

b. Name of Company/Agency:

c. Dollar Value:

d. Point of Contact:

3. PROJECT 3:

b. Name of Company/Agency:

c. Dollar Value:

d. Point of Contact: