SUBNET BAA 2026_Version8_2026 clean - Copy.pdf

Subsistence Network (SUBNET) Broad Agency Announcement

BAA SP4701-26-B-0003

Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

SP4701-26-B-0003

Subsistence Network (SUBNET) Research and Development (R&D)

BAA

PART: U.S. Government Procurements

SUBPART: Services

OFFICE ADDRESS:

DLA Contract Service Office – Philadelphia Attn: Andrea E. Nicolucci, Bldg. 6, Station 6D413 700 Robbins Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19111-5092

CLASS CODE: A-Research and Development

SUBJECT: A-Subsistence Network (SUBNET)

POSTING DATE: 07/14/2026

NAICS CODE: 541715 -- Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

SET ASIDES: N/A

SOL: BAA SP4701-26-B-0003

POINT OF CONTACT (POC) : Andrea E. Nicolucci and Lauren Runowski

CONTACT INFORMATION : Email Andrea.Nicolucci@dla.mil ; Phone : 445-737-0860 and Lauren.Runowski@dla.mil (Please also CC DCSO-P R&D Mail box RandD.DCSO@dla.mil

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

This notice constitutes a combined synopsis and Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the acquisition of R&D in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 35., “Broad agency announcement,” as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. No other solicitation will be issued. Only the information provided in this notice is available. Requests for other forms of solicitation shall be disregarded.

DLA is the primary agency that provides logistics and supply chain services to the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard). This BAA is focused on the Subsistence Network (SUBNET) Research & Development (R&D) Program, which seeks to improve the subsistence supply chain for the Department of War (DoW).

This BAA is limited to RDT&E activities associated with prototyping of existing industry technologies within the commercial marketplace and may not directly result in rapid production fielding. Final determination on the ability to successfully transition the existing commercial industry technologies into production and fielding will utilize a collaborative approach process that considers the overall transition/integration “value proposition” to DLA.

https://www.google.com/url?q=mailto%3AAndrea.Nicolucci%40dla.mil mailto:Lauren.Runowski@dla.mil mailto:RandD.DCSO@dla.mil mailto:RandD.DCSO@dla.mil

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) seeks interested parties to participate in the Subsistence Network Research and Development (R&D) Program, (hereinafter referred to as SUBNET). The SUBNET Program is a DLA-Sponsored DoW Manufacturing Technology Program.

SUBNET has a wide-spread focus on solutions to develop and promote manufacturing improvements in the subsistence supply chain. The program goals are to leverage the latest technologies, encourage innovation and modernization, and to maximize capability and capacity in subsistence. The program engages all elements of the supply chain including the DoW combat ration producers, commercial food suppliers, academia, and other industries and federal agencies to research, leverage, implement, and transition improved technologies in the subsistence supply chain.

In the face of evolving global threats, particularly in contested area denial/anti-access (AD/A2) environments, DLA has identified a critical need to enhance the resilience and agility of the Class I (Subsistence) supply chain. The "Advanced Logistics Initiative for Contested Environments" (ALICE) is a key R&D initiative designed to address these challenges. ALICE pivots from a total reliance on "pull-based" resupply to a hybrid "push-pull" model focused on agile acquisition, intelligent pre-positioning, and autonomous last-mile distribution.

DLA is going through a major Digital Business Transformation (DBX) and is captured as a critical capability in the DLA Strategic Plan 2021-2026. The ALICE concept aims to incorporate the DLA DBX initiatives outlined in the DLA Strategic Plan.

DLA seeks interested parties to enhance DLA business processes using state-of-the-art emerging technologies and innovative business practices. Vendors who receive awards are intended to be organizations with demonstrated expertise in relevant areas of DLA business processes and operations.

The SUBNET mission will be accomplished through sharply focused awards, typically six to 36 months in duration, that will be executed by successful contract awardees.

Subject to availability of funds, a total Government investment up to $35 million ceiling for 5 years is planned during Fiscal Years 2026 - 2030. This investment will be used to fund all contracts and projects.

This BAA will remain open for five (5) years.

SECTION 3: SCOPE

This BAA seeks proposals for R&D projects that address the challenges of Subsistence logistics in contested environments, with a focus on Class I (Subsistence Supply Chain) support for DLA. The program solicitation is built on three acquisition and logistics pillars:

1. Agile & Predictive Acquisition: This pillar focuses on what and how DLA procures subsistence for contested environments. It moves beyond standard items to develop rapid acquisition pathways for innovative commercial solutions, such as nutritionally optimized, vacuum-sealed, freeze-dried, and/or ultra-high-temperature (UHT) processed rations with shelf lives exceeding 5-7 years. The goal is to create a diversified, pre-qualified vendor base ready to supply these specialized items on demand.

2. Smart Packaging & Strategic Pre-Positioning: This pillar concentrates on the "materiel" aspect of the solution. R&D efforts will focus on acquiring and co-developing next-generation packaging that is not only durable but also intelligent. This includes packaging with embedded real-time tracking capability, environmental sensors (temperature, humidity, shock), chemical indicators that provide real-time data on the viability, safety, and quality of the food items, and innovative solutions to prolong shelf-life. This allows DLA to confidently "push" and pre-position critical subsistence in strategic, potentially austere locations for extended periods.

3. Autonomous & Resilient Distribution: This pillar addresses the "last tactical mile" of logistics in an AD/A2 environment. The initiative will fund the development and integration of logistics systems for moving pre-positioned Class I assets from secure caches to dispersed units using autonomous platforms (e.g., unmanned ground vehicles, cargo drones). This reduces the risk to human-crewed convoys and ensures supplies can reach the Warfighter even when direct access is contested.

Other areas of interest include, but are not limited to Class I (Subsistence) Supply Chain innovations in:

1. Combat Rations: Innovations in individual or group rations, including packaged, pre-cooked, shelf-stable food items or unitized group modules (18 or 50 person). Teaming with combat rations assemblers (e.g., AmeriQual, Baxters, Sopakco) is encouraged but not required.

2. Food Equipment: Technology-based solutions improving energy efficiency, mobility, maintainability, or usability of field feeding equipment.

3. Field Feeding Solutions: Systems to enhance efficiencies and reduce production and transportation lead times for feeding troops in training or combat.

4. Food Footprint/Circular Economy: Solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production, processing, transportation, storage, cooking, and disposal, including waste reduction, storage optimization, and lowering costs.

5. Food Innovations: Incremental or disruptive changes to food production or products, focused on existing fielded rations. New products/technologies require collaboration with U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Soldier Center, Combat Feeding Directorate (CFD) as directed by the SUBNET Program Manager.

6. Food Safety and Defense: Risk assessment, prevention, and monitoring to protect the food supply from incidental or intentional contamination. These efforts are often conducted in collaboration with entities like the U.S. Army Public Health Center and CFD to ensure robust and reliable solutions.

7. Garrison Feeding: Improvements to food service at permanent military installations.

8. Nutrition and Health: Advancements increasing nutritional value and accessibility of healthy food options for troops in field or garrison settings.

9. Storage and Packaging Solutions: Improvements in materials or packaging to extend shelf life or enhance food quality.

10. Surge and Sustainment Support: Innovations in production to increase output and support

Warfighters during surge events.

11. Water Security: Technology innovations in bottled water or hydration alternatives.

12. Subsistence Supplies Condition Monitoring During Shipments: Solutions for monitoring conditions during transport, potentially involving participation in the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 program.

13. Smart Packaging Technologies: Development of intelligent packaging with embedded sensors or IoT-enabled devices to monitor food quality, freshness, and safety in real-time during storage and transport, enhancing traceability and reducing spoilage.

14. Sustainable Food Production: Research into eco-friendly production methods, such as vertical farming, plant-based protein alternatives, or lab-grown nutrients, to reduce environmental impact and ensure sustainable sourcing for military rations.

15. Autonomous Supply Chain Logistics: Integration of autonomous vehicles, drones, or robotic systems for last-mile delivery of subsistence supplies to remote or contested areas, improving speed and reducing logistical risks.

16. Additive Manufacturing for Food: Exploration of 3D food printing technologies to produce customized, nutrient-dense rations on-demand in field environments, reducing logistical footprints and enabling tailored nutrition.

17. AI-Driven Supply Chain Optimization: Application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to predict demand, optimize inventory, and streamline distribution processes in the subsistence supply chain, enhancing responsiveness and efficiency.

18. Robotics and Automation: a) Applying robotics to the complex task of assembling individual and group rations, such as MREs and Unitized Group Rations (UGRs) to enhance speed, accuracy, and safety in the ration assembly process, b) Innovating the production of military operational rations by integrating advanced automation and robotics, c) Integrating automation into both field and garrison feeding operations to improve efficiency, reduce labor intensity, and enhance safety.

19. Circular Economy Concepts: Aims to reduce the environmental impact of the subsistence supply chain. Research is directed at solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the entire lifecycle of food from production and processing to disposal. This includes minimizing waste, optimizing storage to prevent spoilage, and lowering costs.

20. Additional Topics: Emerging or innovative research efforts not listed but fulfilling SUBNET objectives, with a clear statement describing the proposed area.

SECTION 4: TECHNICAL AREA OF INTEREST

Through this BAA the DLA R&D SUBNET Program seeks two independent staged approaches to RDT&E activities. These are as follows: The offeror will first need to complete Stage I; Feasibility Study, and based upon Stage I results/evaluation and upon invitation, the offeror can submit another proposal or white paper incorporating the feasibility study findings for the Stage II consideration; Prototype or Conceptual Solution Development, T&E. Offerors deliverable should be aligned with Stage I and Stage

II.

Note: As an exception, offerors with a documented history of successful performance in the SUBNET Program may be eligible to bypass the Stage I Feasibility Study and propose a direct-to-Stage II effort.

Qualification for this expedited path requires the submission of a white paper or proposal that cites the previous SUBNET program contracts that were successfully completed.

STAGE I, Feasibility Study – Not to exceed 12 months

This stage encompasses only requirement analysis with no prototype development. Offerors must deliver a comprehensive feasibility study report that details the following:

• Identification of Capability Gaps: Offeror(s) will collaborate with the DLA Class I Supply Chain Stakeholders to identify capability gaps within the current DLA Troop Support business process and operational environment and how these gaps can be closed by implementing the proposed technologies.

• Requirements Analysis: Offerors will collaborate with DLA Stakeholders to identify the tasks required and conditions needed to meet DLA's needs using new or modified technologies.

• Concept of Operations (CONOPS): The offeror must develop a CONOPS document for the proposed concept.

• At a minimum, the developed CONOPS will include the following sections: 1. Introduction and Vision, 2. Current 'As-Is' Process, 3. Proposed 'To-Be' System and Operations, 4. User Scenarios, 5 Implementation and Transition Strategy.

• Functional Requirements: Offerors must define the functions of the proposed solution and describe the functional inputs and outputs.

• System Requirements, System Design & Specification Document: Offeror(s) must identify the functionality needed by a system to satisfy the DLA customer's requirements.

• Preliminary Metrics: Offerors in collaboration with DLA Troop Support must identify Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Key Systems Attributes (KSAs), and other relevant operational metrics.

• Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) evaluates how mature technology is and informs program management decisions about cost, schedule and risks. Offerors are encouraged to provide an estimated Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the proposed solution in their proposal.

For example: Technology Readiness Level 6 is Prototype Demonstration. In TRL 6, a prototype is tested in a relevant environment (simulated or operational).

Evaluation Process for the Feasibility Study Results:

• Who Evaluates: A Government technical evaluation team, composed of stakeholders from DLA and military services will assess the study.

• Evaluation Criteria: The study will be rated against the defined Stage I objectives and deliverables.

• Rating Scale: The Government will use a standard adjectival rating system (e.g., "Acceptable" /

"Unacceptable").

• Notification: The vendor will receive a formal notification memorandum from the Contracting

Officer outlining the outcome of the evaluation. An invite for the Stage II white paper (Section 5) or proposal submission to the vendor may result depending on continued DLA interest and available funding.

STAGE II: Prototype or Conceptual Solution Development, Test & Evaluation – Not to exceed 24 Months

After completing Stage I, and based upon the findings, evaluation, and invitation, offerors may submit a proposal or white paper for Stage II. Stage II proposals/white papers must specify which of the following courses of action (COA) will be pursued.

COA A: Analytical Study or Conceptual Solution The COA A is for projects that will result in a detailed report, additional R&D studies, or conceptual/material solution. For the purposes of this stage, "conceptual solutions" are defined as recommendations and process improvements or enhancements that are ready to be integrated and/or implemented into the DLA's business processes and operations. After completing Stage II, offerors must deliver a comprehensive final report that details the elements from Stage I, the in-depth analysis and development of the concept in Stage II, and a clearly defined proposed solution. This path encompasses the following:

• Conceptual Development: Using elements from Stage I and addressing DLA Troop Support defined user requirements and functional requirements, a detailed conceptual solution is developed.

This includes in-depth analysis, modeling, simulation, and/or the formulation of a theoretical framework.

• Validation & Verification: The conceptual solution will be subjected to rigorous validation and verification through methods such as peer review, tabletop exercises, or analytical modeling to assess its feasibility, viability, and potential impact.

• Maturity and Viability Assessments: The project's progress will be assessed periodically during Stage II to demonstrate the maturity of the concept and its capability to address the defined requirements.

COA B: Prototype Development The COA B is for projects that will result in a physical prototype. After completing Stage II, offerors must deliver a prototype at a minimum of TRL 7 along with a Stage II report that details the elements and progress from Stage I and Stage II. This path encompasses prototype development and robust Test & Evaluation (T&E) for technology maturation, including:

• Prototype Development: Using elements from Stage I and addressing DLA Troop Support defined user requirements, functional requirements, and system design, a prototype is developed for Experimentation, Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E), Early Operational Assessment (EOA), and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E).

• Experimentation, DT&E, EOA, IOT&E: Using a Government-designated and/or approved testing location/environment, conduct test and evaluation of the prototype.

• Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs): Internal TRAs may be performed as needed during Stage II to identify the TRL and assess and demonstrate the prototype is capable of technology maturity.

Transition from Stage I to Stage II:

Upon successful completion of Stage I, the Government will make a determination on whether to invite the vendor to submit a white paper or proposal for Stage II. This invitation will be based on the quality and evaluation results of the feasibility study, program priorities, and available funding. Vendors invited to proceed will need to submit a white paper or proposal that builds upon their original Stage I submission and incorporates the findings from the feasibility study.

SECTION 5: WHITE PAPER INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAT

A White Paper is an abbreviated document (limited to 6 pages) in which a submitter will describe a technical R&D concept. If the Government deems such a technical concept of interest, the Government may request a total cost and technical proposal. Offerors shall submit White Papers via e-mail to both of the following addresses: Andrea.Nicolucci@dla.mil and Lauren.Runowski@dla.mil in addition to RandD.DCSO@dla.mil.

https://www.google.com/url?q=mailto%3AAndrea.Nicolucci%40dla.mil mailto:Lauren.Runowski@dla.mil https://www.google.com/url?q=mailto%3ARandD.DCSO%40dla.mil

The White Paper provides a synopsis of the proposed project by briefly answering the following questions:

1. What is the proposed work attempting to accomplish or do?

2. How is it done today, and what are the limitations and challenges?

3. Who will benefit and what will the impact be if the work is successful?

4. How much will it cost, and how long will it take?

Templates containing content descriptions and instructions are provided in Attachment A to this BAA.

Use of these templates is mandatory for all submissions to this BAA. Document files must be in .pdf, doc, or docx formats. All submissions must be written in English and all pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with 1-inch margins and font size not smaller than 12-point (8 or 10-point font may be used for figures, tables, and charts).

White Papers will not be evaluated but will be reviewed to determine whether the proposed solution is technically feasible and viable (i.e., compatible with DoW constraints, technical environments, and other organizational requirements), and whether the White Paper presents a research project whose results end users are likely to adopt and that is of sufficient interest to the Government to warrant consideration of a technical proposal. The contracting officer will provide only one of the following two responses to an offeror submitting a White Paper: (1) a statement that the proposed research is not of interest to the Government with the rationale for this decision, or (2) a request to submit a technical proposal as described in section (7) “Proposal format”.

The Government reserves the right to request technical proposals from any, all, some, or none of the offerors submitting White Papers. A request for technical proposals is not a guarantee that the proposal will ultimately be selected for award. White Papers for non-innovative and/or marginal improvements are inappropriate under this BAA and will not result in a technical proposal request.

SECTION 6: GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND INSTRUCTIONS

The Contracting Officer will request proposals on White Papers that are of interest to the Government.

Proposal prices and all other terms and conditions must remain valid for 180 days from the submission date of the technical proposal.

To ensure all technical proposals receive proper consideration, DLA requires all offerors to follow the same format. Technical proposals that do not conform to the format will not be evaluated and will not be considered.

When requested to submit a proposal after a successful white paper submission, offerors shall submit a proposal for an R&D project of their choosing that they believe is suitable for execution by SUBNET Program (to be determined by evaluation against the criteria stated below). The Government intends to award contracts based upon evaluation of the submitted proposal. The proposal shall demonstrate knowledge, experience, and expertise in the Technical Area of Interest described in Section 4. Proposals must also provide information detailing past performance that demonstrates related efforts, achievements, technological aptitude, management support skill, and potential contribution and relevance to DLA’s mission. Offerors must submit full proposals in Portable Document Format (.pdf) via email titled “BAA

0005-26”, to the POC cited on Page 1 to be considered. Electronic proposals should also be sent to the DCSO R&D Mailbox cited as the alternate Point of Contact on Page 1 of the BAA.

*Note: If encountering difficulty submitting proposals or other related documents via email due to file size limitations, files should be submitted to the Primary Point of Contact (POC) through the Solicitation Module on the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website at https://piee.eb.mil.

Vendors who need to use this option should contact the Primary POC directly for further instructions.

This is an unrestricted acquisition. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government’s needs may submit a white paper, which will be considered by DLA. DLA encourages small businesses, small-disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), woman-owned small businesses (WOSBs), historically underutilized business zone (HUB Zone) small businesses, veteran-owned small business (VOSBs), service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), historically black colleges and universities, and minority institutions, and other concerns subject to socioeconomic considerations through its awards to submit white papers under this BAA. However, no portion of this BAA will be set-aside due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of research in this technology. For purposes of this acquisition, the small business size standard is 1000 employees, and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering and Life Sciences. All correspondence and questions on this BAA should be directed to the Contracting Officer POC at the top of the BAA; e-mail is preferred. Other than small business concerns will be required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the most recent version of FAR clause 52.219-9 at the time of proposal submission if proposal cost exceeds the $900,000.00 threshold. Proposals must remain valid 180 days from the date of submission.

Note: Small business are exempt from submitting a subcontracting plan (see subcontracting plan information in attachment B).

Businesses unfamiliar with doing business with the government and that require assistance may contact the state-specific Department of War (DoW) Procurement Technical Assistance Center

(PTAC).

DoW PTACs serve as a resource for businesses pursuing and performing under contracts with DoW, other federal agencies, state, and local governments and with government prime contractors.

Assistance provided by the PTACs is usually free of charge. PTAC support includes registration in systems such as SAM, identification of contract opportunities, understanding requirements and preparing and supporting proposals. The PTACs have a presence in each state, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

To locate a local PTAC visit:

http://www.dla.mil/HQ/SmallBusiness/PTAC.aspx or http://www.aptac-us.org/new/.

SECTION 7: PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals MUST be submitted in the following format and provide the content requested in Section 8“Evaluation Criteria for BAA Awards” of this BAA. Each page of the proposal shall be marked “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

• Two separate volumes consisting of:

https://piee.eb.mil/ http://www.dla.mil/HQ/SmallBusiness/PTAC.aspx http://www.aptac-us.org/new/ o Volume I – Technical Proposal o Volume II – Cost/Price Proposal

• Volume I, Technical Proposal o Shall describe the proposed project and address the Evaluation Factors as contained in this BAA.

• Volume II, Cost/Price Proposal o Shall contain cost and pricing information in support of Volume I technical project.

o Cost/Price information shall include breakout of cost elements as provided for in the Cost

Realism evaluation factor in this BAA.

• NO pricing information shall be contained in the technical proposal.

Volume I – Technical Proposals:

• Technical proposals shall be submitted in the following format: one electronic copy in “.pdf” format sent via email to the Contracting POC and the DCSO-P R&D Mailbox (or PIEE Website).

• Technical proposals in response to this BAA shall be limited to 20 single sided, 8 ½” x 11” pages, including Cover Page, Executive Summary, Proposal Information, Appendices and Attachments, but not including resumes and certifications of key personnel. Any transmittal letter (if submitted) will also be counted toward the twenty-page limit. There is no penalty for submitting shorter proposals, so long as the offeror covers all the required material.

• Type font shall be 12-point Times New Roman with 1” margins around the page (excluding tables, see below section (3) formatting).

PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS DETAILED IN THIS

SECTION MAY NOT BE EVALUATED OR AWARDED. TECHNICAL PROPOSALS THAT

EXCEED 20 PAGES MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION.

To ensure all technical proposals receive proper consideration, DLA requires all offerors to follow the same format. Technical proposals must meet the following format requirements:

(1) Document files must be written in English and in .pdf formats.

(2) No more than twenty (20) single-sided pages including body, appendices, and attachments.

(3) Formatting for printing on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with 1-inch margins and font size not smaller than 12-point (8 or 10-point font may be used for figures, tables, and charts).; and

(4) Header on each page to identify page content and page number.

Any project Gantt charts may be submitted on larger pages (e.g., legal size), as required to be readable.

There is no penalty for submitting a technical proposal of less than 20 pages if the technical proposal covers all the required material. Resumes and certifications for technical data and computer software will not be counted as a part of the 20-page limit. Technical proposals must be clear and concise and must include sufficient detail to substantiate the validity of the research. Technical proposals must address the evaluation factors provided in Section 8, Evaluation Criteria for Contracts. No cost or pricing information may be contained in the technical proposal.

Offerors must assume that DLA has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and DLA will base its evaluation exclusively on the merits and content of the information presented in the technical proposal, except that DLA reserves the right to evaluate relevant past performance that is not included in the technical proposal.

Markings for Technical Proposals

Information in the technical proposal that is deemed by the offeror to be proprietary must be clearly marked as proprietary information. Research and Development is considered CUI. In accordance with the Department of War (DoW) phased CUI Program, any form of communication or documentation containing CUI must carry the appropriate markings, i.e., header and footer identifying the document as “CUI” and a completed CUI Designation Indicator.

CUI - Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Proposals shall include all proprietary claims to results, prototypes, or systems supporting or necessary for the use of the research, results, or prototypes. If there are no proprietary claims, then the proposal must include a statement to that effect. Do not put proprietary data or markings in the Statement of Work

(SOW).

Proposals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for review purposes shall include the following sentences in accordance with FAR 52.215- 1(e)(1) and (2) on the cover page. Mark the title page with the following legend:

“This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed-in whole or in part-for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract 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 provided in the resulting contract. 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];” and, furthermore, mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

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

In accordance with FAR 3.104-4, your company is required to mark all material that may be Source Selection Information as described at paragraph (10) of the “Source Selection Information” definition in FAR 2.101, to include the cover page and each page that may contain source selection information, with the legend “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”. Although the information in paragraphs (1) through (9) of the definition in 2.101 is considered to be Source Selection Information whether or not marked, all reasonable efforts must be made to mark such material with the same legend.

If you are unsure if particular information is Source Selection Information as defined in FAR 2.101, consult your Contracting Officer. In addition, your company is required to mark all material that may be procurement sensitive, or defense covered information with the legend “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI). If the information is also source selection information both markings must be present.

Note: Source Selection markings are required for all documents submitted in response to this BAA, which includes White Papers and Technical/Price Proposals (when applicable).

Technical proposals shall consist of four parts:

Part 1 — Proposal Cover Sheet Part 2 — Executive Summary Part 3 — Feasibility, Viability, and Desirability Part 4 — Past Performance, Capabilities and Recent, Related Experience

Part I – Proposal Cover Sheet

1) BAA number; (2) Proposal Title; (3) Technical Point of Contact, including name, telephone number, email address, and mailing address; (4) Administrative/Contracting Point of Contact, including name, telephone number, email address, and mailing address; and (5) 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.

Part 2: Executive Summary An Executive Summary of the offeror’s entire technical proposal in one page or less 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, and the expected outcome improvement associated with the project.

Part 3: Feasibility, Viability, and Desirability Offerors must explain the proposed research project and methodology in sufficient detail to establish the feasibility, viability, and desirability of accomplishing the research.

Feasibility – solution to problem statement is technically possible. The technology exists or is likely to be developed in the scope of the proposed effort. An example of something that is not feasible is a “Star Trek” transporter.

Viability – solution to problem statement is compatible with DoW constraints, technical environments, and other organizational requirements. DoW could easily adopt the proposed solution. An example of something which is not viable is a technology that has no chance of passing DoW cyber security requirements.

Desirability – solution is responsive to a problem statement. End users are likely to adopt the proposed solution. Examples of something that is not desirable are (i) a piece of field equipment that is so uncomfortable to carry that end users refuse to bring it into the field and

(ii) a feasible, viable technology that does not meet the problem that end users are trying to solve.

Part 4: Past Performance, Capabilities and Recent, Related Experience

Section–1 - Work Experience: Offerors must provide information pertaining to prior significant and related research, work experience, or expertise for the proposed research. The information must include an explanation of how this experience or expertise will be beneficial to the proposed research. Offerors must identify no more than five contracts along with the performance period and a brief performance history for each contract within the last three years for which they have provided services and/or supplies of a nature that is consistent with the Area of Interest and relevant to the proposed research. Contractors must also list any previous contracts that have been terminated for cause and the reasons. When reporting contract information please include the proposed award dollar value of the contract and the dollar value at completion.

Section–2 - Points of Contact: Offerors must provide point of contact information for each of the contracts identified in response to Part 4, Section 1 above including the company name, points of contact names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.

Section 3 – Contractor Teaming Arrangements: State whether contractor teaming arrangement experience relevant to the proposal exists. Where related work was performed with teaming partners, the offerors must also provide team member points of contact, including company name, individual names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.

Section–4 - Bibliography: Offerors must include a bibliography of relevant technical papers and research, published and unpublished, which documents the technical ideas upon which the research is based.

Volume II – Cost Proposal:

No page limits apply to the Cost Proposal. The cost proposal shall include total project cost by month. The offeror shall also give a detailed breakdown of the total project costs by each task listed in the technical proposal. If subcontracts are contemplated, the offeror must estimate the total amount of effort to be subcontracted and specify the “burden” or “pass through rate” that will be applied to those subcontracts.

Offerors are required to submit certification of current cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.406- 2 (Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data). The total cost of each major cost element and the make-up of those costs shall be presented in the offeror's proposal. A statement related to the latest DCAA audit and whether the offeror’s accounting system has been approved by the DCAA shall be included in the Cost Proposal. State if there are currently negotiated DCAA rates or forward pricing rate agreements and factors being used in the proposal. Include a detailed breakdown of costs by cost category by offeror's calendar or fiscal year:

• Direct Labor - Individual labor categories or person with associated labor hours and unburdened direct labor rates

• Indirect Costs - Fringe benefit, Overhead, G&A, Cost of Money, etc. (must show base amount and rate)

• Travel - Number of trips, destinations, durations, purpose, etc.

• Subcontracts - A cost proposal is required to be submitted by any proposed subcontractor and

“burden” or “pass through rate” shall be clearly stated.

• Materials - Specifically itemized with estimated (or actual) costs.

• Lease Items - Fair market value of lease items and the method used for making such evaluations

Sufficient information shall be provided in supporting documents to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of these proposed costs. Additionally, a completed Cost Proposal Adequacy Checklist (Attachment C) shall be included with each proposal submission.

Cost Proposal Format

To ensure all cost proposals receive proper consideration, DLA requires all Offerors to follow the same format. Offerors shall submit cost proposals within 30 calendar days of contracting officer’s request in the following format: (1) ”.5" x 11”-page size; (2) a header on each page to identify page content and page number; and (3) type font 12-point Times New Roman with 1-inch margins around the page. No page limits apply to cost proposals. The cost proposal must reflect an understanding of the research, perception of risks, and ability to organize and perform the task(s) stated in the technical proposal. Offerors shall submit the following information:

Part 1 – Overview Part–2 - Cost or Pricing Data (certified when requested by the Contracting Officer) Part–3 - Work Breakdown Structure Part 4 – Proposal Adequacy Checklist (Attachment C)

Part 1 – Overview

a. Cost Proposal Cover Sheet: Offerors shall provide the following information:

(1) BAA Number

(2) NAICS code

(3) BAA Area(s) of Interest from Section 4 above

(4) Offeror’s Technical Point of Contact, including name, telephone number, e-mail address, and mailing address (no post office box)

(5) Offeror’s Administrative/Contracting Point of Contact, including name, telephone number, e-mail address, and mailing address (no post office box)

(6) 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.

(7) CAGE Code

(8) Subcontractors participating in the research and estimated cost (if none state “not applicable”)

(9) Small businesses participating in the research and estimated cost (if none state “not applicable”)

(10) Historically Black Colleges and Universities or Minority Institutions participating in the research (if none state “not applicable”) Performance Period

(11) Contract type selected from one of the cost-reimbursement contract types.

(12) Research title

(13) Brief research description

(14) Total Estimated Cost

(15) Fixed Fee Amount - the fee shall not exceed 10% of the estimated cost (if proposal is for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract).

b. Accounting System

Offerors shall provide a description of the accounting system proposed for this research and a copy of accounting system approval from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

c. Approved Rates

Offerors shall provide a statement regarding current negotiated DCAA or HHS rates, factors, forward pricing agreements, and/or other related cost factors and considerations being used in the cost proposal.

d. Audit or Forward Pricing Agreement

Offerors shall provide a copy of the latest audit or forward pricing agreement from DCAA or HHS.

Part 2 – Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

Offerors shall submit certified cost or pricing data when requested by the contracting officer to support a determination of cost realism for cost proposals with a total estimated value of $2,000,000.00 or more in accordance with FAR 15.403-4. If the total estimated value is under $2,000,000.00, offerors shall submit data other than certified cost or pricing data to support a determination of cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.403-3. Offerors shall submit data in accordance with FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

Offerors shall submit certified cost or pricing data, data other than certified cost or pricing data, and supporting attachments in accordance with the instructions contained in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408.

Offerors shall submit subcontractors’ certified cost or pricing data, data other than certified cost or pricing data, and supporting attachments. If the subcontractor will not submit this information to the offerors, this information must be submitted directly to the contracting officer for cost realism analysis.

Part 3 – Work Breakdown Structure

Offerors shall submit a detailed work breakdown structure including all costs in a table format for all research tasks. Offerors shall include at a minimum, the costs cited above.

Part 4 – Proposal Adequacy Checklist regarding Cost and Pricing Information

Sufficient information should be provided in supporting documents to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost proposal adequacy checklist from DFARS 252.215-7009, has been included as an Attachment to the BAA for guidance (See Attachment C).

Cost Realism Analysis

DLA will perform a cost realism analysis on cost proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), Cost Realism Analysis. Realism determination will be based on an evaluation of the cost proposal to determine whether the estimated cost elements are realistic for the proposed research; reflect a clear understanding of the applicable BAA Area(s) of Interest and are consistent with the proposal research plan.

a. Labor Mix and Other Direct Costs

Offerors are required to provide their proposed labor rates and total cost for each labor category. In addition, offerors are required to provide applicable indirect rates, which should include, but may not be limited to, G&A, Fringe, Overhead, and Sub-contractor “burden” or “pass through rate.” Offerors are additionally required to provide labor category descriptions that include minimum education, experience, and certification requirements.

• Direct Labor: Individual labor categories or person with associated labor hours and unburdened direct labor rates.

• Indirect Costs: Fringe benefit, Overhead, G&A, etc. (must show base amount and rate)

• Travel: Estimated number of trips, destinations, durations, etc.

• Subcontracts: A cost proposal is required to be submitted for any proposed subcontractor, and

“burden” or “pass through rate” shall be clearly stated.

• Materials: Specifically itemize and identify as estimated or actual costs.

Cost proposals shall include the following summary tables in addition to the vendor’s other cost proposal information:

Labor

Category (identify)

Hours Unburdened Labor Rate

Overhead G&A Burdened Labor Rate

Totals:

Indirect Costs (%) Indirect Rate

1. G&A

2. Overhead

3. Fringe

4. Subcontractor Burden Rate

SECTION 8: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

The Government reserves the right to make awards based on all, some or none of the proposals received. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement.

The Government will evaluate technical proposals in accordance with this section through a peer or scientific review process. Technical proposals will be evaluated for an overall technical capability that is feasible, viable, and desirable and describes a project that provides a solution in an Area of Interest listed in Section 4. Technical evaluation factors are as follows:

1. Feasibility (Overall Scientific and Technical Merit) – solution to problem statement is technically possible. This criterion measures whether the technology exists or is likely to be developed in the scope of the proposed effort.

2. Viability – solution to problem statement is compatible with DoW constraints, technical environments, and other organizational requirements. This criterion addresses the likelihood of transition (adoption of the offeror’s solution) by measuring whether DoW could easily adopt the solution.

3. Desirability – solution is responsive to a problem statement. This criterion addresses likelihood of transition by measuring whether end users are likely to adopt the offeror’s solution.

4. Past Performance, Capabilities and Recent, Related Experience - the offeror has relevant experience and expertise, including technical papers and research, published and unpublished, that document the technical ideas and projects upon which the proposed research is based and current and previous recent work that indicates likelihood that the offeror can successfully accomplish the proposed research. Offerors are advised that the Government may use information gained from any source known to the Government to evaluate past performance, provided such information is recent (within the past 3 years).

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Technical proposals for non- innovative, marginal improvements are inappropriate under this BAA and will receive no further consideration.

Evaluation Rating Scheme Proposals will be assigned a rating based on the adjectival ratings below.

In accordance with FAR 35.007 (f), the Contracting officer, in addition to the evaluation factors for technical competence shall consider, as appropriate, management capability (including cost management techniques), experience and past performance, subcontracting practices, and any other significant evaluation criteria (e.g., unrealistically low-cost estimates in proposals for cost-reimbursement or fixed-price incentive contracts).

Factor 1 – Overall Scientific and Technical Merit (Feasibility) The offerors’ proposal must explain the proposed research project and methodology in sufficient detail to establish that the proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, and comprehensive and that the proposed technical team has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements must be complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined and directed toward a final outcome that achieves the proposed goal(s). The proposal must identify major technical risks and present clearly defined and feasible mitigation efforts.

Highly Acceptable (HA): The proposal presents a thorough approach and understanding of requirements. The approach employs technology that is at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4 or higher.

Proposed information technology shows good knowledge of FedRAMP requirements and strongly addresses cybersecurity, including independence from foreign actors. Submission contains some strengths that demonstrate the ability of the offeror to meet or exceed applicable program objectives as provided for in the BAA Area of Interest.

Acceptable (A): The proposal includes an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

The approach employs technology that may require moderate additional development. Proposed information technology shows some knowledge of FedRAMP requirements and minimally addresses cybersecurity, including independence from foreign actors. The response includes at least the minimum level of information requested in the BAA and may contain strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies. Any weaknesses are not so substantial as to adversely offset identified strengths.

Not Acceptable (NA): Proposal does not demonstrate a satisfactory approach or understanding of the requirements. The approach employs technology that may require moderate to significant additional development. Proposed information technology shows little or no knowledge of FedRAMP requirements and does not adequately address cybersecurity, including independence from foreign actors. The response demonstrates little to no understanding of the objectives of the BAA Area of Interest.

Factor 2 – Viability The proposed effort is viable and likely to transition into an operational capability. The offeror demonstrates an understanding of working with DLA and DoW and of relevant DLA and DoW policy.

Information technology included in the proposed effort addresses cybersecurity requirements and show awareness of specific requirements (e.g., FedRAMP) for IT in the Federal Government, DoW, and DLA.

Highly Acceptable (HA): The proposed effort is strongly relevant to DLA’s mission. Offeror(1) has significant prior experience as a DLA or DoW contractor, or (2) has demonstrated a clear understanding of the nuances of working with the government and the level of effort, need for adaptability to changes in policy, and regulatory hurdles involved. The proposed approach is structured to address such challenges and has a high probability that the results will ultimately transition to an operational capability. Risk to DLA is considered low.

Acceptable (A): The proposed effort demonstrates some…