Proposal_Information_Package.docx

PROPOSAL INFORMATION PACKAGE for BAA SPM7X-12-R-0033

ADVANCED MICROCIRCUIT EMULATION (AME) ENRICHMENT PROGRAM

BACKGROUND:

DLA often selects its research and development efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. The BAA will appear first in the Federal Business Opportunities web page, www.fbo.gov . The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

AREAS OF INTEREST

DLA, as the largest DoD item manager of electronic components, is pursuing an Advanced Microcircuit Emulation (AME) Enrichment Program. AME seeks to capitalize on technology and processes previously or currently funded by DLA, as well as other leading-edge technologies applicable to the areas of Form, Fit, and Function (FFF) Emulation of advanced digital devices, microprocessors and microcontrollers, memory, programmable logic devices, hybrid microcircuits, linear/analog devices, circuit card assemblies. Additionally, DLA is interested in the FFF Emulation of electronic assemblies. DLA is also interested in Engineering Services directly related to the customer support of the above Emulated applications (those applications developed and/or implemented through the AME Program) to end item users. This BAA is not for the purpose of implementing Engineering Services to any concept or device other than those implemented within or related to the AME Enrichment Program.

The goal of the AME Enrichment Program is developing advanced military quality (e.g. MIL-PRF-38535, MIL-PRF-38534,…), economical, rapid, turn-key integrated Emulation technology/process(es) and capability that are proven through hard FFF device/assembly demonstrations and LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) FFF Emulations in the major interest categories (application areas). The proposer must address how the proposer will achieve applications of the developed or offered technology. Statements that the proposer will primarily “interact” or “pursue” or “interface” with the Government (and / or Government suggested) direct opportunities will be considered non-responsive. The AME Enrichment Program must also maintain access to the technologies and devices developed under the predecessor AME, AME Validation, and AME Implementation Programs. There are NO technology transfer funds available to implement this access. The successful program will incorporate maximum commonality in approach, technology, and processes across the category areas. The Government desires the lowest possible resource commitment to maintain the successful AME technology, commencing at the earliest possible point (no later than LRIP). Concepts shall address this resource minimization explicitly. The minimization presentation shall be from multiple viewpoints: technical, fiscal qualitative, and fiscal quantitative. Presented concepts must address economical end device cost, thereby maximizing the warfighters’ benefit. The presented concepts should evidence a realistic early LRIP transition to end fielded production capability. Turn-key capability is defined as Emulation capability given an initiation point of defined nomenclature (device(s) or assembly), available technical data, sample devices (or assembly) through to finished quality FFF devices or assembly. The offeror must plan for and implement active device manufacturing for real system applications as part of their offered concept(s). It is necessary that this capability be clearly addressed in the proposal. This concept means that the offeror must provide both a means of ordering (e.g. Delivery Orders, Task Orders, etc.) and complete manufacturing capability throughout the duration of the contract to service/fulfill those orders. The Emulation methodologies must be met through the use of technologies that will be continually available and supportable over the long term. Concepts must make provisions for technical/concept interchange and/or interface with any existing and/or future DLA efforts related to supporting Circuit Card Assemblies (e.g. FSC 5998). Concepts must also address a thorough outreach to the DoD community including the Program Offices, Original Equipment Manufacturers, organic engineering activities, repair/rework facilities, etc.. These outreach activities must entail active support and participation by the offeror’s personnel in the outreach activities. Any offeror proposed outreach programs that are focused on Government identified application instances will be deemed non-responsive. The offeror must have active participation in identification of opportunities and achievement of AME Enrichment Program technology (device) applications (insertions/utilization into Weapons Systems). Offered Emulation concepts/methodologies must be economically viable to permit their respective Emulation solution(s) to be attractive in comparison with traditional non-procurable resupply solutions (e.g. redesign, upgrade, etc.). Technologies integral to the above interest sub-categories include, but are not limited to: device characterization, device test, microcircuit design, microcircuit fabrication, circuit card assembly characterization, circuit card assembly design, circuit card assembly fabrication, circuit card assembly test, device packaging, hybrid design, hybrid assembly, and device/assembly qualification.

Relevant technologies do not include: theoretical concepts (defined as, but not limited to, concepts evidencing low potential of immediate application to readily available technology, tools and/or processes), proposed studies, concepts addressing only a portion of a turn-key capability (for at least a minimum of an entire single category of interest), concepts solely assessing market requirements, concepts not including demonstration/exercise of an end Emulation fabrication capability (Emulated devices or assemblies, as applicable), concepts not including searching for and assisting in AME Enrichment Program insertion opportunities, and concepts proposing traditional or modified redesign techniques and/or redesign methodologies. The above cited technologies/methodologies (in this paragraph) are NOT desired and may NOT be considered. Concepts that are simply remanufacture of device(s) or assembly(ies) are NOT desired and may NOT be considered. Concepts that are judged as being high risk in migration from demonstration and/or LRIP to an ultimate production and part on demand capability are NOT desired and may NOT be considered. Concepts or process flows linked to overly complex, convoluted, disparate, and/or otherwise potentially non-functional management (and/or control and/or quality assurance) structures are NOT desired and may NOT be considered regardless of any other merits.

This BAA focuses on the development, demonstration, and implementation of non-traditional methods of production and supply of non-procurable devices and assemblies. It is expected that the AME Enrichment Program will be the basis to develop and implement the capability to economically supply DLA’s and the Services’ needs for currently non-procurable in-scope items and those becoming non-procurable for the next five to seven years. It is also the vehicle to implement capability developed and/or fielded in the AME Implementation Program and its predecessors. AME’s goal is to reduce the number of items classed non-procurable and supply these previously non-procurable items at an attractive cost, thus increasing the warfighters’ support.

The existing DLA-funded digital Emulation production capability may be roughly classed as military quality grade devices, encompassing microcircuits ≤ 20 Volts, ≤ 48 pins, >2 nanosecond gate level transition times, and <5,000 logic gates. These capabilities typically meet early transistor-transistor logic (TTL) (e.g. TTL, low-power TTL(L), low-power Schottky TTL(LS), high-speed TTL(H), some advanced-low-power Schottky TTL(ALS), emitter coupled logic (ECL), n-channel metal-oxide semiconductor (NMOS), and complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technologies. Additionally, there is a 5 volt configurable memory Emulation capability that includes aggregate memory cell complexities up to 4K. The currently capability also encompasses borderline linear capabilities in very simple amplifiers, comparators, and drivers ranging up to 20 volts. Information on these devices may be located at www.gemes.com.

The existing DLA-funded Low Rate Initial Production Capability may be described as including Application Specific Integrated Circuits up to 500,000 gates (down to 0.5 micron CMOS and up to 5 level metal) and 100 volt output – 5 volt logic driver applications. It also includes 1.5 micron Deep Trench Isolated Schottky technology, 1.2 micron Silicon on Insulator Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor Radiation Hardened technology, and 0.8 micron Emitter Coupled Logic technology. Again, there is NO technology transfer funding (or schedule time) available to integrate any of these technologies to non-ready and proven infrastructure for support.

DLA AME APPLICATION AREAS:

The Government is willing to consider some, none, or all concepts that develop, implement, and demonstrate the capability listed below. The Government may consider concepts that exceed the capabilities listed below. The Government may consider turn-key concepts (for at least one category) for partial capabilities listed below provided the concept clearly and strongly demonstrates (in the Government’s judgment) both a technical and cost effective potential for direct extensibility to the below specified capabilities employing the original concept’s methodology. A primary focus of all efforts on this Program shall be to achieve widespread Weapons Systems’ AME device insertions and utilizations. The offeror must propose efforts that include offeror responsibility to identify and effort to implement such insertions and utilizations of AME technology. The offeror’s primary response must not focus on process development below 0.35 micron, it may be a lesser focus accompanying applications. Applications are more important to the Government.

1. Advanced Digital Devices: This application area includes digital devices beyond current capability. The desired capability may be broadly bounded by Large Scale Integration up through high-end devices. This category includes complex standard function devices, programmable logic devices (early and complex), gate arrays, and custom devices (up to 500,000 gates in the very near term and 30,000,000 gates in the out-years). It also includes standardized high performance digital devices.

2. Microprocessors and Microcontrollers: This application includes both early standard and custom microprocessors (≥ 8 bit) up through mid-term microprocessors (16 and 32 bit and larger). This category includes their supporting and commonly associated microcircuits/microcircuit chip sets. Current capability may be described as approximately equivalent to MIL-STD-1750.

3. Memory: this application area includes the broad RAM and ROM categories beyond the existing capabilities. The sub-categories include, but are not limited to: programmable, electrically programmable, electrically erasable programmable, static, dynamic, flash, and others to 256K in the very near term and 16M in out-years.

4. Programmable Logic Devices: This category includes Emulation of devices spanning the various types of both programmable and field programmable devices. These devices have been used as both original production and logistic/engineering support in original applications.

5. Hybrid Mircrocircuits: This application area includes hybrid microcircuits employing components from Small Scale Integration up to the scale and complexity of the die in the accompanying application areas above (numbers one through four inclusive).

6. Linear/Analog Devices: This application area includes devices starting with the low end high performance operational amplifiers and continuing through advanced high performance analog-to-digital (A/D) digital-to-analog (D/A) convertors. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following kinds of amplifiers: general purpose, radio frequency, differential, wideband, power, and so forth.

7. Circuit Card Assemblies: This application includes Engineering Services related to replacement of electronic assemblies or elements thereof with Emulated FFF devices. The target in this category is electronic assemblies employing AME Enrichment Program technology. Efforts in this category are producing and mounting FFF components and also FFF Emulation of sub-assemblies and/or assemblies using modern Emulation techniques. There is also an interest in non-traditional innovative techniques and methodologies to develop the technical data package for the missing or incomplete technical packages.

The following are common desirable elements for concepts in meeting all of the above applications. Address of some, none, or all of the following elements (in any form) does not necessarily constitute an adequate concept. Concepts whose principal elements have maximum applicability/compatibility across multi-application areas, who do not have proprietary (unless proffered with concomitant Government rights) design and/or fabrication equipment/processes, who have standardized commercial design and fabrication equipment/processes, having captive and/or in-house controlled fabrication lines, and possessing certifiable high end user product quality are desirable. Concepts including Trust capabilities as defined under the Trusted Access Program Office are desirable. Concepts building on existing and/or state-of-the art processes and techniques are desirable. Concepts that include comprehensive offeror outreach to the DoD community (commercial and organic) are desirable and essential. As mentioned earlier, concepts proposing sound offeror acquisition of AME Enrichment insertions to Weapons Systems are desirable and essential.

The key concept of the AME Enrichment Program is a continuing source for all parts produced and/or delivered under the effort. Therefore, the offeror must evidence in-house or captive fabrication to establish a continuing source of Emulation wafers and processing thereof throughout the program. This capability must be implemented in a long term supportable methodology, a methodology not requiring technology succession and/or re-engineering.

SUBMISSION PROCESS

This announcement will be open for 30 days from publication of the BAA notice in the Federal Business Opportunities (www.fbo.gov) web page. The due date for submission of full proposals is specified in the BAA (note to readers: 30 days from publication).

Proposers MUST submit a proposal abstract in advance of actual proposals. This procedure is intended to minimize unnecessary effort in the proposal preparation and review. An original and four (4) copies (and an electronic copy in both pdf and Microsoft Word formats) of each proposal abstract must be submitted to the administrative address for this BAA (note to readers: 10 days after publication). DLA will acknowledge receipt of the submission and assign a control number that should be used in all further correspondence regarding abstracts and proposals.

The Government will attempt to review proposal abstracts within 10 days after receipt of a proposal abstract and will make a binding decision as to whether an offeror may propose a full formal submission(s). Proposal abstracts will be reviewed as they are received. Early submissions are strongly encouraged.

The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included in a single proposal. Each proposal should identify one or more application areas on the cover sheet from the application areas listed above.

All proposals will be reviewed by Government officials only. Proposals and proposal abstracts submitted by fax will be disregarded.

EVALUATION CRITERIA/EVALUATION AND FUNDING PROCESSES

Proposals will not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. The Government’s intent is to review proposals as soon as possible after they arrive; proposals may be reviewed periodically for administrative reasons.

For evaluation purposes, a proposal is the document described in PROPOSAL FORMAT (see below). Other supporting or background materials submitted with the proposal will be considered for the reviewer’s convenience only and not considered as part of the proposal.

Evaluation of proposals will be accomplished through a review of each proposal using the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of relative importance:

1. Potential contribution to meeting DLA’s and the Services’ requirements, including, but not limited to: a) breadth of the device coverage, b) the end device quality, and c) the concept’s viability in producing FFF Emulated devices/assembly(s) at a fair and reasonable price, d) timeliness of the concept’s solution, e) likelihood of achieving widespread system applications [this evaluation will include / focus on offeror responsibility to achieve system applications]

2. Overall scientific and technical merit,

3. Proven, demonstrated captive or in-house capability to produce/fabricate high quality devices (as proposed in the concept) [this evaluation will focus on the continuing source capability as identified by the Government’s requirements]

4. Sufficiency of the offeror’s active participatory outreach program to achieve system applications

5. Plans, management structure, and capability to accomplish technology development, implement LRIP, and transition to a self-sufficient stand-alone enterprise (possibly including the use of proposer’s resources)

6. Offeror’s capabilities and past performance on related efforts

7. Cost realism.

As soon as the proposal evaluation is completed, the proposer will be notified of selectability or non-selectability. Selectable proposals will be considered for funding; non-selectable proposals will be destroyed (One copy of non-selectable proposals may be retained for filing purposes). Some, none, or all of the selectable proposals may be funded. Decisions to fund selectable proposals will be based on funds available, scientific and technical merit, and potential contribution to DLA’s mission. Proposals may be considered for initial funding for a period of up to one year. The maximum contract length with exercise of all potential options is five (5) years. The Government reserves the right to select for award some, none, or all of the proposals received.

PROPOSAL ABSTRACT FORMAT

Proposal abstracts are required to minimize unnecessary effort. Proposal abstracts should follow the same general format as described PROPOSAL FORMAT (see below). The cover sheet should be clearly marked “PROPOSAL ABSTRACT” and the total length should not exceed 11 pages. No formal transmittal letter is required.

PROPOSAL FORMAT

All full proposals must be in the format given below. Non-conforming proposals may be rejected without review. They shall include in the electronic document in both Portable Document Format (PDF) and Microsoft Word versions. The proposal will consist of four volumes: Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal; Volume II, Cost Proposal; Volume III, Past Performance; and Volume IV, Small Business Utilization.

Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal:

The combined Technical and Management Proposal shall include the following section, each starting on a new page (page is 8.5 in x 11 inch with type not smaller that 12 point, single-sided). It may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers that document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included along with the submission. The submission of other supporting materials is strongly discouraged. Except for the attached bibliography, the technical and management proposal shall not exceed 45 pages (single-sided). Maximum lengths for each section are shown in braces {} below.

Section I. Administrative

A. {1} Cover Page including:

1) BAA number

2) Technical application area(s) from the following: a) Advanced Digital Devices, b) Microprocessors and microcontrollers, c) Memory, d) Programmable Logic, e) Hybrid Microcircuits, f) Linear/Analog devices, g) Circuit Card Assemblies,

3) Proposal Title

4) Technical point of contact, affiliation, telephone, fax, e-mail address, full mailing address

5) Administrative point of contact including name, affiliation, telephone, fax, e-mail address, full mailing address

6) Proposer’s type of business selected from the following categories: Large Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Other Small Business, Non-Profit, Other (describe).

Section II. Summary of Proposal

This section provides an overview of the proposed work as an introduction to the associated technical and management issues.

A. {2} Non-traditional methodologies and/or innovative claims for this development and implementation. This page is a key component of the proposal and should succinctly describe the proposed technology.

B. {2} Deliverables associated with the proposed research. Include in this section all proprietary claims to technology, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for implementation and/or operation of the proposed technology. If there are not proprietary claims, this fact should be so stated. Descriptions of deliverables should convey the capabilities and functionality to be developed and implemented with as much specificity as possible.

C. {2} Cost, schedule, and milestones for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort and total cost. Milestones should coincide with critical review points in the development.

D. {4} Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of non-traditional methodologies and innovative claims (if any). This section should succinctly address the technical barriers to overcome, the technical developments that will surmount those barriers, and the technical basis for confidence that those developments are feasible. (In full proposals, this section will be supplemented by a more detailed plan in section III).

E. {1} General discussions of other research/developments in this area, indicating what previous work will be built upon and what previous work will be improved upon (with a general outline of how it will be improved upon).

F. {1} List of Key Personnel along with amount of effort to be expended by each person during the contract year. For purposes of this BAA, AME Key Personnel are defined as any technical person holding a bachelor’s degree or greater. Additionally, Key Personnel with equivalent work experience substituted for a bachelor’s degree can be defined by the proposer.

Section III. Detailed Proposal Information

This section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and managerial issues. Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to DLA.

A. {3} Statement of Work (SOW) written in plain English, outlining the proposed scope of the effort, citing specific tasks to be performed, specific contractor requirements, and clearly citing efforts leading to end deliverables. Each task should also include a brief description of the product of the task (e.g. Emulation library, Emulated device, etc.) and the exit criteria for completion of the task.

B. {5} Description of the project results, products, and implementation plan.

C. {7} Detailed technical rationale enhancing that of section IID (technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan). This section should provide a more detailed account of the development and implementation and also provide a sound basis and/or justification for the validity of proposed methodologies and innovative claims (if any) make in section IIB and IIIB (deliverables, results, etc.).

D. {4} Detailed technical approach enhancing and completing that of Section IID. This section should communicate the technical reasoning underlying Sections IIC and IIIA, and explain how capabilities will evolve over each year of the proposed effort. A formal structured approach with separate phases of development, proof of concept, LRIP implementation, and transition to self-sufficiency should be presented.

E. {3} Comparison with other ongoing research and development, clearly indicating both advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort with respect to potential alternate approaches F. {3} Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in this or closely related research areas.

G. {1} Description of the facilities and equipment that would be used for the proposed effort.

H. {2} Concise summary of the qualifications of Key Personnel (see IIF for definition of Key Personnel along with other major sources of support for them.

I. {4} Cost breakdown to the level of major tasks (major tasks are not simply the first breakdown level – all costs must be broken down such that the Government can determine if the proposed efforts are reasonable) and equipment for the entire contract and for each contract year. When the effort consists of multiple portions that could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified with separate estimates for each.

Section IV. Appendix/Additional Information A bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished) that document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included in the submission. The material(s) submitted in this section will be considered for the reviewers’ convenience only not considered as part of the proposal.

{No page limit}

Volume II, Cost Proposal. {No page limit} Volume II of the submitted proposal shall contain a complete cost breakdown. A clear, complete, and accurate cost proposal reflects the offeror’s financial plan for accomplishing the technical effort. Failure to provide cost data in an acceptable format will delay consideration of the proposal and may result in the offeror being declared non-selectable or unacceptable. The cost proposal shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 15.804-6 and shall include a Standard Form 1411, Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet, with all supporting data in order to allow for a complete review by the Government. If Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCM) is being proposed, the offeror is also required to complete a DD Form 1861. The breakdown of cost data shall include all costs expected to be incurred under the contract. Cost details, broken down by cost element, should be prepared for each major task (again – major tasks are not simply the first breakdown level – all costs must be broken down such that the Government can determine if the proposed efforts are reasonable) along with the supporting rationale. All cost details shall be broken down to coincide with the offeror’s accounting periods as related to the specific period of performance as reflected in the proposed milestone chart. The cost proposal shall include all supporting information including, but not limited to: breakdown of hours by category, materials, equipment, travel, all direct and indirect costs. There is no page limit on the Cost Proposal. Additional guidance for specific cost elements follows:

A. Direct Materials: Priced bill of materials, vendor quotes, and/or engineering cost estimates of direct materials, shall be submitted in the scope and depth stipulated in Table 15-2, FAR 15.408.

B. Direct Labor: Provide a time-phased (e.g., monthly, quarterly, etc.) detailed manning chart showing breakdown of labor categories, hours, rates, etc., by specified task.

C. Subcontracts: The extent of any proposed subcontracting, joint ventures, teaming arrangements, etc., must be fully described. Copies of subcontractors’ cost proposals must be attached to your proposal. Indicate the type of contract contemplated to be awarded to successful subcontractors. Indicate the basis of selection for proposed subcontractors (competitive or sole-source). If proposed subcontractors were not selected competitively, include a justification for the sole source acquisition. The offeror shall further support any proposed subcontract costs with the results of the cost/price analysis of the subcontract cost proposal. Prime contractors are responsible for assuring that all proposed subcontracts in excess of $700,000 are supported by an executed SF1411.

D. Travel Costs: Include schedules indicating the number of man-trips required, destinations, and number of day’s subsistence per trip for each destination. Identify and support any other special transportation costs attributable to the performance of this procurement.

E. Fee: it is suggested that offerors consult the guidance at FAR 15.404-4 and DFARS 215.404-4 when development proposed fee or profit.

Volume III, Past Performance. {no page limit} Volume III shall detail the offeror’s previous related performance. Specifically, the offeror shall submit a description of its previous Government contracts (all prime and major sub-contracts received, or in performance, during the past four (4) years) that in any way relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. Commercial contracts may be included if necessary. The description shall include the following information in the following format:

A. Identify in specific detail for each contract listed, why or how you consider the effort relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation.

B. Your (or your subcontractor’s) commercial and government entity (CAGE).

C. Government or commercial contracting activity, address, and telephone number.

D. Procuring Contracting Officer’s (PCO’s) name and telephone number.

E. Government or commercial contracting activity technical representative, or COTR (COR), and telephone number.

F. Government or commercial contracting activity administration activity, and the name and telephone number of the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

G. Contract number.

H. Contract award date.

I. Contract type.

J. Awarded price/cost.

K. Final, or projected final, price/cost.

L. Original delivery schedule.

M. Final, or projected final, delivery schedule.

N. A narrative explanation on each previous contract listed describing the objective achieved and any cost growth or schedule delays encountered. For any Government contracts that did not/do not meet the original requirements with regard to either cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid reoccurrence. The offeror shall also provide a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each previous contract listed and a description of any corrective action by the offeror or proposed subcontractor.

O. The offeror shall also provide the above required information for any and all contracts it has had terminated in whole or in part, for default during the past six (6) years, to include those currently in the process of such termination as well as those that are not similar to the proposed effort. The contractor shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary.

P. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contract involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements of this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited.

Q. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among proposed subcontractors. Information required in the above paragraphs shall be provided for each proposed subcontractor who will perform a significant portion of the effort. “Significant” is defined for these purposes in terms of percentage value (30% or more) of the total dollar value of work proposed and/or in terms of criticality of the subcontracted work to the whole. With regard to prime contract assignment that will be performed by your organization and not a proposed subcontractor, you shall indicate:

1) What internal corporate bodies/divisions will accomplish which portions of the effort,

2) Whether or not those divisions were responsible for performance under the previous contracts cited for the current proposal, and

3) If those divisions have relocated since the accomplishment of previous cited contract efforts, a description of any changes arising from that relocation in terms of key personnel, facilities, and efforts, a description of any changes arising from that relocation in terms of key personnel, facilities, and equipment.

R. Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor’s past performance evaluation with the offeror during negotiations, if any.

NOTE: Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate offeror’s past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in the proposals. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested in this volume risk rejection by the Government.

Volume IV, Small Business Utilization. {No page limit} In accordance with the DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 215, Section 215.305, FAR 52.219-8 offerors (including small business) shall identify the extent of participation of small and small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small business concerns and Women-owned small business concerns, in the performance of the contract. Volume IV shall address the following:

A. Identification of any small and small disadvantaged businesses. HUBZone small business concerns and Women-owned small business concerns, which are proposed as subcontractors, suppliers, etc.;

B. Prior experience of the offeror in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan;

C. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total proposal;

D. The complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform.

In addition to the above, large businesses must submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR, 19.7. Such subcontracting plans must comply with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9. Small Businesses submitting proposals against this BAA must submit Volume IV as described above.