LTAMDS_Draft_Eval_Criteria_with_Attachments.docx

SECTION 3 – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND INSTRUCTION

L.1 Copies of the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) solicitation are only available from the Agreement Officer (AO) listed in Section 6. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to remain cognizant of further request or modifications to this solicitation after the LTAMDS PON is released at FedBizOps ( https://www.fbo.gov/ ).

L.2 The Government considers that the “White Paper and associated artifacts” is the Offeror’s proposal to LTAMDS PPON solicitation.

L.3 The proposal shall be prepared clearly and concisely to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal based on the presumption that the Government has no previous knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. The proposal will be evaluated by the Government only on the information specifically provided by the Offeror.

L.4. The Offeror is cautioned that “parroting” a requirement of either the LTAMDS Performance Specification (P-Spec) or the LTAMDS PON Statement of Work (SOW) with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in the Proposal to permit a complete and accurate Government proposal evaluation. The Offeror shall clearly identify any information considered “PROPRIETARY.”

L.5. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. The Offeror’s Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with (IAW) the instructions provided in the LTAMDS PON at FedBizOps ( https://www.fbo.gov/ ) and shall be delivered on Compact Discs (CDs) IAW the instructions provided in L.5(f).

b. Offeror proposals will be evaluated in a careful, full and impartial manner pursuant to the stated criteria of this PPON. An award will be made to the Offeror that is of the best value to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation results. The below evaluation criteria will be used in the selection of an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) award. The Government will determine best value based upon the information contained in the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in the proposal to permit a complete and accurate Government evaluation. Failure of the Offeror to provide accurate, reliable data may render the proposal unacceptable.

c. The proposal shall remain and clearly state that it is valid for a minimum of 180 calendar days after the closing date for receipt of proposals.

d. Offeror questions, requests for clarification, and additional information concerning the LTAMDS PPON shall be formally communicated to the Agreements Officer (AO) at ACC‑NJ listed in Section 6.

e. It is requested that all questions/comments regarding the LTAMDS PPON be submitted within fourteen (14) days after the LTAMDS PPON is posted to FedBizOps. The Offeror is encouraged to review all requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the process. The Government does not anticipate extending the closing date for receipt of proposals to this PPON.

f. Unclassified proposals on CDs shall be mailed to the address below on or before the date/time specified in the LTAMDS PPON. Proposal artifacts submitted through either email, telegraphic or facsimile will not be accepted. Unclassified proposal artifacts shall be shipped to:

Lower Tier Project Office (LTPO) Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTB (Mr. Robert Hearon) 106 Wynn Drive Huntsville, AL 35805

Classified proposal information on CDs that is mailed can be sent using either the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) or FedEx®. However, FedEx® is preferred in order to ensure timely delivery.

Classified information mailed via USPS should be sent to:

PEO Missiles and Space Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTR Bldg. 5250, Martin Rd.

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

The inner wrapping shall be addressed to:

Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTR (Ms. Karen Potter).

Classified information mailed via FedEx® shall be sent to:

Lower Tier Project Office (LTPO) Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTR 106 Wynn Drive Huntsville, AL 35805

The inner wrapping shall be addressed to:

Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTR (Ms. Karen Potter).

g. To be eligible for an award, the Proposal shall be submitted in compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the LTAMDS PPON. Failure to furnish a complete response, at the time of submission, may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and elimination from consideration for award. The Government will not accept proposals or changes after the closing date listed in the LTAMDS PPON.

h. The Offeror shall submit all proposal information, less “Sense Off” data, by TBD (date). The Offeror shall submit “Sense Off” data and any adjustments to the proposal resulting from the “Sense Off” no later 10 days following completion of the “Sense Off.”

i. For cost preparation purposes, the expected or approximated timeframe for the LTAMDS OTA award is September 2019.

j. The proposal’s written section shall be in English language using 12-point Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins on 8.5 inch by 11 inch page size. Unless requested by the Government, hyperlinks, appendixes, and/or other attachments are not allowed. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

L.6. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The proposal submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and topic number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Contents feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

1. Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1”

2. From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

3. Page Size, Width – 8.5”

4. Page Size, Height – 11”

NOTE: 11” x 17” folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11” x 17” page counts as two pages.

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. Content Requirement. All proposal information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposed solution in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proposals shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Summary Sections and narrative discussion for each Factor. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

L.6.1. Eligibility

L.6.1.1 Nontraditional Defense Contractor OR Small Business/Cost Share

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2371b paragraph d, Offerors must meet at least one of the following conditions to be considered for an award:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors.

(C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government.

Definitions:

(1) Agreements Officer (AO) is the United States Army Contracting Command – New Jersey Contracting Activity warranted Officer with authority to enter into, administer, change or terminate other transactions agreements.

(2) Agreements Specialist (AS) is the United States Army Contracting Command – New Jersey Contracting Activity specialist and designee of the AO for executing modifications, administrative matters, and financial aspects of the Agreement.

(3) Cost Share includes any costs a reasonable person would incur to carry out (necessary to) Statements of Work not directly paid for by the Government.

(4) Fixed Amount means an OTA under which an awardee agrees to complete a prototype project for an agreed upon total price and where payments are not based on amounts generated from the awardee’s financial or cost records.

(5) Innovative means any new technology, process, material, or method, including research and development; or any new application of an existing technology, process, material, or method.

(6) Key Participant as defined by the DoD OTA Guide means a business unit that makes a significant contribution to the prototype project. Examples of what might be considered a significant contribution include supplying new key technology or products, accomplishing a significant amount of the effort, or in some other way causing a material reduction in the cost or schedule, or increase in performance.

(7) Nontraditional Defense Contractor as the term is defined in section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code with respect to applicable authority, means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section. This includes all small business concerns under the criteria and size standards in Title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, part 121 (13 CFR 121).

L.6.1.2 Compliance with Proposal Criteria

The Offeror shall demonstrate compliance with the Proposal criteria shown in Attachment 1. Compliance is defined to be that the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the notional LTAMDS PON SOW, LTAMDS P-Spec, and the LTAMDS PPON.

The Offeror shall provide a crosswalk demonstrating the answers to the 14 questions in Attachment 1 in the proposal.

L.7 Factor 1 – Schedule:

The Schedule Factor comprises 1) the Design Maturity (L.7.1) and 2) the Integrated Master Schedule (L.7.2), both are equally important. The Government will assess the probability/risk that the Offeror’s design will successfully meet the program objectives within the required UMR fielding schedule in 4QFY22.

As supporting data for the Schedule Factor, the Offeror shall develop an LTAMDS Description of the proposed LTAMDS solution that is interoperable with the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) Engagement Operations Center (EOC), PAC-2, and PAC-3/MSE. The Offeror’s LTAMDS Description may include text, photos, illustrations, and model/drawing extracts. The LTAMDS Description shall include subsystems, components and interfaces. The LTAMDS Description shall include power flow and coolant flow diagrams, as well as Blake sheet analyses, error budget analysis, reliability analysis, maintainability analysis and human factors analysis. The LTAMDS Description shall identify and illustrate the LTAMDS design in transport, storage, and tactical configurations. The LTAMDS Description shall define the design approach for tracking simulated and live targets.

The proposed LTAMDS solution description shall clearly identify all differences between the proposed configuration and the “Sense Off” configuration. The Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) description shall be presented in no more than 75 total pages.

L.7.1 Design Maturity: The Offeror shall submit a completed Attachment 2 (Design Maturity Self-Assessment) assessing its level of maturity based on the system maturity levels identified. The Design Maturity self-assessment shall be based upon the LTAMDS design characterized in the Offeror's LTAMDS Description. The self-assessment shall be accompanied by substantiating data supporting the Offeror's self-assessment of the maturity level achieved. The Offeror shall provide substantiating data for each achieved maturity item, within each maturity level identified in Attachment 2 (Design Maturity Self-Assessment).

The Offeror shall demonstrate how the “Sense Off” test article will be integrated with Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) Advanced Capability (PAC) -2, and PAC-3/Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE).

The Offeror shall describe LTAMDS producibility including, but not limited to, manufacturing analysis, use of rate reciprocal tooling, and the identification of potentially high cost, high risk, and long lead-time items. The Offeror shall describe how LTAMDS can be produced economically to drawing and specification requirements and within the design to unit production cost goals.

L. 7.1.1 Substantiating data submitted for the LTAMDS Design Maturity evaluation shall be in the form of Government test data, third party test data, Offeror test data, manufacturers specification sheets, validated modeling and simulation data, safety confirmations, material release information, analytical support, design documentation and/or rationale.

L.7.1.2 Substantiating data shall include the configuration status and documentation of the proposed LTAMDS design as reflected in DOORS® or equivalent database, as well as the drawing status and documentation as reflected in the appropriate Offeror database.

L.7.1.3 The Offeror shall provide substantiating data that is complete, specific, and relevant to the specific maturity level asserted in the LTAMDS Design Maturity self-assessment. Additionally, the Offeror shall submit the design completeness matrix (Attachment 3), with supporting documentation. Substantiating data will only be evaluated if relevant to the proposed LTAMDS design.

L.7.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). The Offeror shall develop and submit an LTAMDS IMS. The IMS shall be developed consistently with the events and dates defined in Attachment 4 (key schedule events) of the LTAMDS PON. The Offeror shall develop the LTAMDS IMS in Microsoft Project. The LTAMDS IMS shall identify key events, accomplishments and criteria. The IMS shall include a thorough resource loading of the direct costs (labor, material, subcontracts-with material and labor within the subcontracts identified, ODCs, etc.) proposed to be incurred during the performance of tasks. The Offeror shall include all significant external interfaces, critical items from subcontractors or other detailed schedules that depict significant and/or critical elements, and Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Material (GFM)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/ Government Furnished Information (GFI) dependencies. The Offeror shall use a calendar consistent with the Offeror's work schedules. The IMS shall clearly indicate at least one unbroken critical path that traces from the LTAMDS award to the Urgent Material Release (UMR). Text names for tasks/milestones on the critical path shall be displayed in underlined, bold red text. If the IMS has multiple critical paths, the proposal shall include the assumptions and logic associated with the multiple critical paths. All assumptions used to develop this IMS shall be provided as a separate annex in sufficient detail to enable Government assessment.

L.7.2.1 The LTMADS IMS shall clearly describe, with activity names and descriptions, the work being accomplished. The IMS shall comprise sufficient activities and events for the Offeror to manage the LTAMDS program from the LTAMDS award through the first six pre-production deliveries. The remaining LTAMDS program activities shall be planned in detail and submitted in planning packages. If the Offeror provides an IMS with more than 7,000 activities, only the first 7,000 activities listed will be evaluated. The LTAMDS IMS shall be submitted as a MS Office Project 2013 file. The file shall be unlocked and, in addition to typical schedule specific information, shall include the following for each activity:

a. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) number;

b. Task Accomplishment Criteria;

c. Responsible organizational entity;

d. Resource hours/dollars;

e. Crosswalk to Basis of Estimate (if applicable)

In order to facilitate LTAMDS IMS evaluation, the Offeror shall omit:

a. Level of Effort activities;

b. Duplicate activities (i.e., the same activity shall not be included more than once in the schedule

c. network);

d. Regular recurring deliveries (i.e., deliveries that occur every month or quarter);

e. Regular recurring meetings (i.e., monthly Program Management Reviews, etc.); and

f. IMP Significant Accomplishments / Accomplishment Criteria / Completion Criteria as activities.

L.7.2.2 The LTAMDS IMS shall include all tasks and events associated with primary weapon assembly- and system-level safety certifications.

L.7.2.3 Subcontractor schedules shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS IMS for all first and second tier suppliers whose contract value exceeds 10% of the total LTAMDS award value including options.

L.7.2.4 The Offeror shall conduct a schedule analysis using a schedule analyzer tool (such as Steelray Project Analyzer). The results and Offeror interpretation of this analysis shall be provided to the Government as part of this proposal.

L.4.2.5 The Offeror shall provide a schedule risk assessment using a Monte-Carlo simulation of the LTAMDS IMS from the LTAMDS OTA award through the first six pre-production assets delivered. The Monte-Carlo simulation shall include three-point estimates for Offeror selected key activities/events for this program. Justification and rationale shall be provided for each three-point estimate. The Offeror shall provide a chart of probability of success versus program duration in months in 5% increments from 5% to 90%.

L.8 Factor 2 – Capability:

The Capability Factor comprises 1) Current Capability (L.8.1) and 2) Future Capability (L.8.2). The Capability Factor evaluation will be used to establish confidence that the proposed LTAMDS solution will meet the requirements of the LTAMDS P-Spec.

The Offeror shall provide a description, justification and substantiating data of how the proposed solution satisfies all ten (10) capabilities listed in Attachment 5. The description shall include, at a minimum, a mapping of the LTAMDS P-Spec requirements to satisfy each capability (Attachment 5), a justification of how the proposed design meets that capability, and whether the capability will be part of the current or future capability configuration.

The Offeror shall propose the initial product baseline (iPBL), tailored from the LTAMDS P-Spec, by providing a Generation Breakdown Listing to the lowest level of indenture. The iPBL shall be provided in a searchable Microsoft Office compatible format and shall include all elements defined in Attachment 6. The iPBL will be placed under Government change control at the LTAMDS award. For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contract Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate that the requirement is satisfied either during the Period of Performance (PoP) of the LTAMDS OTA or during follow-on, incremental development or Pre-planned Product Improvement (P3I) agreements/contracts. The Offeror shall not modify any language in the LTAMDS P‑Spec. The Contractor Performance Specification iPBL shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS OTA.

L.8.1 Current Capability The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). For each requirement in the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7) the Offeror shall provide data to substantiate, in the format defined in Attachment 7 (Verification Cross Reference Matrix), the Performance of the proposed design.

The Offeror shall submit a system integration approach that demonstrates how the proposed current LTAMDS system will be integrated with IBCS, PAC-2, and PAC‑3/MSE. This system integration approach shall be incorporated into a System Integration Plan as a portion of the LTAMDS OTA.

L.8.1.1 Substantiating Data shall be in the form of Government test data, third party test data, Offeror test data, manufacturers specification sheets, validated modeling and simulation data, safety confirmations, material release information, analytical support, design documentation and/or rationale. Substantiating data shall be complete, specific, and relevant only to the specific performance levels proposed to be achieved by the Offeror for each requirement. If the substantiating data for one requirement is the same as data cited for another requirement, then reference the previously provided data in Attachment 8 (Performance Requirements Worksheet) and do not provide duplicate data. If the Offeror submits substantiating data for a design configuration that varies from the proposed LTAMDS design configuration (not limited to “Sense Off” test item), then the Offeror shall explain the extent of the variance and the impact such variances have on the credibility of the substantiating data. If the Offeror uses third party test data to substantiate requirements, then the Offeror shall provide the data and test reports showing all characteristics and parameters of data/test.

L.8.1.2 Subcontractors or other third parties that will not disclose substantiating data to the Offeror may submit the substantiating data directly to the Government per the instructions in L.5(f).

L.8.2 Future Capability The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). For each requirement in the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7) the Offeror shall provide data to substantiate, in the format defined in Attachment 7 (Verification Cross Reference Matrix), the Performance of the proposed design.

The Offeror shall provide an analysis and risk assessment of how the proposed future capability will be developed within the Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) profile of the proposed current capability configuration. Specific risks and risk mitigation activities will be identified.

The Offeror shall provide an analysis and risk assessment of the proposed hardware and software open architecture to demonstrate how the proposed current configuration and architecture can incorporate the future capability. Specific risks and risk mitigation activities will be identified.

The Offeror shall perform and deliver a software timing and sizing analysis to validate that the future capabilities can be developed with the existing software processors. Specific risks and risk mitigation activities will be identified.

L.8.2.1 Substantiating Data shall be in the form of Government test data, third party test data, Offeror test data, manufacturers specification sheets, validated modeling and simulation data, safety confirmations, material release information, analytical support, design documentation and/or rationale. Substantiating data shall be complete, specific, and relevant only to the specific performance levels proposed to be achieved by the Offeror for each requirement. If the substantiating data for one requirement is the same as data cited for another requirement, then reference the previously provided data in Attachment 8 (Performance Requirements Worksheet) and do not provide duplicate data. If the Offeror submits substantiating data for a design configuration that varies from the offered design configuration (not limited to “Sense Off” test item), then the Offeror shall explain the extent of the variance and the impact such variances have on the credibility of the substantiating data. If the Offeror uses third party test data to substantiate requirements, then the Offeror shall provide the data and test reports showing all characteristics and parameters of data/test.

L.8.2.2 Subcontractors or other third parties that will not disclose substantiating data to the prime Offeror may submit the substantiating data directly to the Government per the instructions in L.5(f).

L.9. Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The Offeror shall provide LTAMDS Pricing, in Excel 2013 format. All pricing shall be fixed amounts. All line item numbers will be summed for a total evaluated price.

Price Inconsistencies. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the proposed performance and price, should be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and their financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques without an Offeror’s documentation (including calculations and supporting rationale) explaining the apparent unbalanced pricing. The Agreement Officer may reject a proposal where the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Government Furnished Property (GFP): The Government will not provide any GFP for solicitation PPON purposes. The Government will only provide the Government Furnished Information (GFI) listed in the LTAMDS performance specification.

SECTION 4 – BASIS OF EVALUATION

Offeror Proposal(s) will be evaluated in a careful, full and impartial manner pursuant to the stated criteria of this PON. Awards will be made to the Offeror(s) that are of the best value to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation results. The below Evaluation Criteria will be used in the selection of one OTA award. The basis for award of OTA resulting from this PON will be the result of the evaluation of the Factors specified below.

M.1. Go/No-Go Criteria:

The Government has established a “Go/No-Go” criteria for a Offeror to be eligible for an LTAMDS OTA award.

M.1.1 Compliance with Proposal Criteria The Offeror shall demonstrate compliance with the proposal criteria shown in Attachment 1. Compliance is defined to be that the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the notional LTAMDS PON SOW, LTAMDS P-Spec, and the LTAMDS PON.

The Offeror shall provide a crosswalk demonstrating the answers to the 14 questions in Attachment 1 in his proposal response to section L.

M.2 Evaluation Criteria

M.2.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Schedule Factor 2 – Capability Factor 3 – Cost

M.2.2 Relative Order of Importance Schedule is significantly more important than Capability. Capability is slightly more important than Cost.

The combination of all factors, other than Cost, are more important than Cost. However, cost may become a more significant factor when ratings of acceptable proposals are closely grouped. Offerors will be cautioned, however, that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced Offeror or the Offeror with the highest rating.

M.2.3 Rating Definitions The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the ratings for Factor 1 – Schedule and Factor 2 – Capabilities.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Factor 3 – Cost does not receive a rating.

M.3 Source Selection Review Team (SSRT)

The proposal will be evaluated by an independent SSRT. The overarching evaluation approach of the SSRT for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the notional LTAMDS SOW, LTAMDS P‑Spec, and the LTAMDS PPON.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposals will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposals will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven methods and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.4 Factor 1 – Schedule

The Schedule Factor comprises 1) the Design Maturity, and 2) the Integrated Master Schedule. These are equal in importance. For this Factor the Government will review provided substantiating data in the breadth and depth necessary to conduct its assessment of the proposal.

M.4.1 Design Maturity The Government will assess the probability/risk that the proposed LTAMDS design will successfully meet the schedule requirements of this PON based on the extent and credibility of the “Sense Off” data, and other design maturity data provided to substantiate the Offerors self-assessment of design maturity levels.

M.4.1.1 “Sense Off” data that establishes conformance to the proposed LTAMDS design configuration represents the most credible form of substantiating test data. After “Sense Off” data, Government test data will be considered more credible than other substantiating data. In addition, any substantiating data for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible. The greater the extent to which the proposed design configuration meaningfully varies from the design configuration to which the data applies, thereby undermining the credibility of the offered data, the more the Government may discount the validity of the substantiating data.

M.4.1.2 The Offeror is required to submit the information and supporting data required for the other factors by standalone submission. The Offeror may not assume that substantiating data submitted for the Design Maturity will be considered in the evaluation of other factors of the proposal. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize this substantiating data in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

M.4.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) The Government will assess the proposed LTAMDS IMS and any substantiating data for the probability/risk that the Offeror will successfully meet the program requirements and delivery dates as noted in Attachment 4. The IMS evaluation will include the completeness program events and associated descriptions, the IMS logic and structure, and the Offeror‑provided risk assessment of the IMS and associated assumptions and justifications.

M.5 Factor 2 – Capability

The capability factor comprises 1) current capabilities and 2) future capabilities. Current capability is defined as the capability proposed to be delivered under the resultant agreement. Future capability is defined to be the ability of the system to evolve through a P3I approach to meet all LTAMDS P-Spec requirements. The priority of capabilities is as follows, Entrance Criteria, TBM Defense, ASM/ARM Defense, Non-TBM Defense, Full Sector Defense, Electronic Protection, Kill Assessment/Interceptor Support, Operations and Sustainment, Training, Emplacement Accuracy, and Mass Attack. These capabilities are defined in (Attachment 5). The more capabilities delivered as current capability is better than future capability.

The proposed LTAMDS capabilities, the mapping to the LTAMDS P-Spec, and the associated risk will be evaluated. The current capability will be proposed in the iPBL, tailored from the LTAMDS P-Spec, by providing a Generation Breakdown Listing to the lowest level of indenture. The iPBL will be placed under Government change control at LTAMDS OTA award. For each LTAMDS P‑Spec requirement, the Contract Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate that the requirement is satisfied either during the PoP of the LTAMDS OTA or during follow-on, incremental development or P3I agreements/contracts. The Offeror shall not modify any language in the LTAMDS P‑Spec. The Contractor Performance Specification iPBL shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS OTA.

M.5.1 Current Capability

The Government will assess the risk that the proposed LTAMDS solution will achieve the capabilities and associated LTAMDS P-Spec requirements identified in Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7).

M.5.1.1 The primary purpose of the substantiating data submitted for current capability is to document and support the achievement and credibility of the proposed LTAMDS solution meeting the requirements identified in Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). The Government will review the data obtained from the “Sense Off” and other substantiating data in the breadth and depth necessary to conduct its assessment of the proposed performance.

M.5.1.2 Proposal submission of information and supporting data are required for all factors by stand-alone submission. It may not be assumed that substantiating data submitted for one Factor will be considered in the evaluation of any other Factors in the proposal. However, the Government reserves the right to use this substantiating data in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

M.5.1.3 “Sense Off” test data that establishes conformance to the proposed LTAMDS design configuration represents the most credible form of substantiating data. After “Sense Off” test data, US Government test data will be considered more credible than independent third-party test data, which will be considered more credible than Offeror/supplier test data, which will be considered more credible than other substantiating data. In addition, any substantiating data for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible. The greater the extent to which the proposed LTAMDS design configuration varies from the design configuration to which the data applies, thereby undermining the credibility of the offered data, the more the Government may discount the validity of the substantiating data.

M.5.2 Future Capability

The Government will assess the risk that the current LTAMDS design will support a P3I approach to achieve the proposed future capabilities and associated LTAMDS P-Spec requirements identified in Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7).

M.5.2.1 The primary purpose of the substantiating data submitted for future capability is to document and support the credibility of the proposed future solution meeting the requirements as identified in Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). The ability of the current design to evolve within the existing Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) profile, the existing software processor margins and the design of the open architecture proposed and the associated risk will be evaluated. The Government will review the data obtained from the “Sense Off” and other provided substantiating data in the breadth and depth necessary to conduct its assessment of the proposed performance.

M.5.2.2 Proposal submission of information and supporting data are required for all factors by stand-alone submission. It may not be assumed that substantiating data submitted for one Factor will be considered in the evaluation of any other Factors in the proposal. However, the Government reserves the right to use this substantiating data in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

M.5.2.3 “Sense Off” test data that establishes conformance to the proposed design configuration represents the most credible form of substantiating data. After “Sense Off” test data, Government test data will be considered more credible than independent third party test data, which will be considered more credible than Offeror/supplier test data, which will be considered more credible than other substantiating data. In addition, any substantiating data for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible. The greater the extent to which the proposed design configuration varies from the design configuration to which the data applies, thereby undermining the credibility of the offered data, the more the Government may discount the validity of the substantiating data.

M.6 Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The Government will conduct price analysis of the overall prices submitted to determine price reasonableness for OTA award. Price reasonableness will be based on competitive offers received in response to this PPON and against the Government estimate. A price evaluation will be conducted by summing all line item numbers to arrive at a total evaluated price. All pricing shall be fixed amounts.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION

In projects that provide for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000, the agreement must include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General the ability to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The Contractor shall ensure that the Government will receive an Unlimited Rights license to all technical data and computer Software (SW) developed and delivered under this OTA. The Contractor shall not use any internally developed technical data or computer SW, or any other pre-existing proprietary information, if such a use would in any way prevent the Government from receiving Unlimited Rights to all technical data and computer SW developed or delivered under the OTA. If, after award, such a use is contemplated by the Contractor, the Contractor shall disclose its intent in writing to the AO prior to its use, and shall receive written approval from the AO prior to proceeding. All technical data and computer SW developed or delivered under the OTA shall have appropriate data rights markings in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013(f) and 7014(f), and asserted IAW 252.227-7017 via the table below at the lowest segregable level. All Contractor-owned or background patents that otherwise affect the Government’s rights in the deliverables anticipated under the OTA are also identified in the Table below.

Name of Organization Asserting Restrictions Deliverables Affected

None

To be considered for award, the Offeror shall meet at least one or more of the following conditions:

1. At least one nontraditional defense contractor is participating to a significant extent in this prototype project.

2. All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small business or nontraditional defense contractors.

3. At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government.

If you answered “Yes” to condition 1 The Offerors’ proposal shall provide a description of how the significant participant meets the requirements for a non-traditional defense contractor and how they will be participating to a significant extent, and the percentage and dollar amount of the significant participation.

The Offerors’ proposal shall certify the following:

“[Significant Participant Company Name] is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.”

If you answered “Yes” to condition 2 The Offerors’ proposal shall provide a description of how all significant participants are small business or how the significant participants meet the requirements for a non-traditional defense contractor.

The Offerors’ proposal shall certify the following for each significant participant:

“[Significant Participant Company Name] is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.”

If you answered “Yes” to condition 3 The Offerors’ proposal shall state the amount that is being proposed and whether the cost sharing is a cash contribution or in-kind contribution as discussed below. If the offer contains multiple team members, this information shall be provided for each individual team member providing cost share.

Cost sharing includes any costs a reasonable person would incur to carry out (necessary to) Statements of Work not directly paid for by the Government. Cash contributions mean: Outlays of funds to perform the Technology Objective. Cash includes labor, materials, new equipment, and relevant subcontractor efforts. Sources include new Internal Research & Development (IR&D) funds, profit or fee from another contract, overhead or capital equipment expense pool. New IR&D funds offered to be spent on the Statement of Work and subject to the direction of the project’s management may be utilized as cost share. All cash sharing availability must be clearly and convincingly demonstrated by the member. The Offeror will be required to provide financial reporting with appropriate visibility into expenditures of Government funds vs. private funds. Parallel research that might be related to the project, but will not be part of the Statement of Work or subject to the direction of the project’s management will not be considered for cost sharing. All costs, fees, profits, G&A, bid and proposal costs, or intellectual property value incurred prior to the project award will not be accepted.

Unacceptable cost share sources include the following:

a) Sunk costs or costs incurred before the start of the proposed project

b) Foregone fees or profits

c) Foregone G&A or cost of money applied to a base of IR&D

d) Bid and proposal costs

e) Value claimed for intellectual property or prior research

f) Parallel research or investment, i.e., research or other investments that might be related to the proposed project but which will not be part of the Statement of Work. Typically these activities will be undertaken regardless of whether the proposed project is awarded.

g) Off-Budget Resources, i.e., resources that will not be risked by the Offeror in performance of the proposed project, will not be considered when evaluating cost share.

Cost Share Requirements:

Cost share is not a mandatory requirement. However, if a proposal does not contain at least one nontraditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent, then it is anticipated the proposal will contain at least one third of the total Project cost as cost share. Beyond that, cost sharing is encouraged if possible as it leads to stronger Government-contractor technology leveraging

Attachments

Attachments Attachment 1- 14 Questions.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Any Warfighter - Anywhere - All The Time

14 Questions for White Paper Evaluations

1. Is this a Prototype Project?

2. What is the resulting prototype(s) deliverable going to be?

3. What is the prototype quantity for each item(s) identified in #2 above?

4. Does the proposed technology address the sub-objective requirement, either fully or in part?

5. Explain the overall technical approach that the contractor will use to reach the end objective

6. In your technical opinion, is this approach adequate to successfully reach the proposed technology solution? Why or why not?

7. Identify any distinct strengths and/or weaknesses with the technical approach.

8. In your technical opinion, what are the Government’s assessed risks to this technical approach?

9. In your technical opinion, to what extent can the risks be mitigated?

10. How will the final prototype(s) be tested/evaluated?

11. Who is performing the testing? Both Contractor and Government

12. Where is the testing being performed?

13. In your technical opinion, is the proposed testing adequate to fully assess the prototype’s feasibility?

14. Discuss why or why not the proposed schedule is realistic and achievable.

image2.emf

Attachment 2- Design Maturity Self-Assesment.xlsx Title Page

Attachment 44 Design Maturity Self Assessment

Distribution A

Maturity Level

System Maturity Level Artifacts Required to Achieve Level Location within Proposal (if provided)

Functional Baseline Completed

Software Requirements Documented

Derived Requirement Development Completed

Interface Identification Completed

Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) Program Plan completed

R&M Allocations Completed

Software Requirements Validated

Component Analysis/Selection Completed

Interface Designs Completed

Lessons Learned from previous design generation(s) implemented

Design for Manufacturability Study Completed

R&M Modeling and Prediction Completed

Cybersecurity Architectural Design Trade Study Analysis Completed

Design Failure Mode Effects and Analysis (DFMEA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Critical Items List (CIL) Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Transmit / Receive Channel Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Integrated Line Replaceable Units Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Antenna Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Exciter Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Power Generation and Distribution Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on RF Signal Processing Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on power and cooling Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Electronics Architecture/Software Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on Fire Control System/Software Completed

Sub Systems Integration/Testing/Analysis on IFF System/Software Completed

AC/DC and DC/DC Power Supply Architectures Completed

Software Architectures Completed

Requirements Compliance Matrix Completed

Component Qualification Testing Completed

Materials Analyzed for Shelter/Structure/Frame/Protection

Software Integration/Testing/Analysis completed

Failure Analysis Completed

R&M system level M&S, Analysis, and sub-system level testing completed

Cybersecurity assessment of subsystem components

R&M modeling and prediction updated with the reduced failure rates

Integrated System Testing (to current requirements) Completed

Search Performance Testing (to current requirements) Completed

Tracking Performance Testing (to current requirements) Completed

CDI Performance Testing (to current requirements) Completed

NCTR Performance Testing (to current requirements) Completed

Interceptor Control/Kill Assessment Performance Testing (to current requirements) Completed

Failure Analysis Completed

Software Integration Schedule Completed

Cybersecurity assessment of integrated system completed

The system level R&M test completed, data collected and analyzed, failure analysis completed, and R&M predictions updated with test results. Training package completed ready for User assessment.

CAD Drawings Finalized (to current requirements)

Software Test Incident Reports dispositioned.

Interface Design Finalized (to current requirements)

Requirements Compliance Finalized

Manufacturing plan finalized

Cybersecurity vulnerability assessment completed

Corrective actions for the failures from system level testing developed and R&M predictions updated with the reduced failure rates (to current requirements)

&"-,Bold"&14Attachment 44

Page &P of &N 24 October 2017

Data Validation

Yes

No image3.emf

Attachment 3 Design Completeness Matrix.xlsx Schedule VCRM

Verification Events

3.1

3.1.1

3. 1.1.1

3.1.1.1.1

3.1.1.1.2

3.1.1.1.3

3.1.1.1.4

3.1.1.2

3.1.1.2. I

3.1.1.2.2

3.1.1.2.3

3.1.1.2.4

3.1.1.2.5

3.1.1.2.6

3.1.2

3.1.2. I

3.1.2.2

3. 1.3

3. 1.3. l

3. 1.3.2

3. 1.3.3

3.1.3.4

3. I .4

3. I .4. l

3.1.4.2

3.1.5

3.1.5. I

3.1.5.2

3.1.5.2.1

3.1.5.3

3.1.5.3. I

3.1.5.3.2

3.1.5.4

3.1.5.5

3.1.5.6

3.1.5.6. I

3.1.5.6.2

3.1.5.7

3.2

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.2.1

3.2.2.2

3.2.2.3

3.2.3

3.2.3.1

3.2.3.2

3.2.3.2.1

3.2.3.3

3.2.3.3.1

3.2.3.3.2

3.2.3.3.3

3.2.3.3.3.1

3.2.3.3.3.2

3.2.3.3.4

3.2.3.3.4.1

3.2.3.3.4.2

3.2.3.3.5

3.2.3.3.5.1

3.2.3.3.5.2

3.2.3.3.6

3.2.3.4

3.2.3.4.1

3.2 .3.4.2

3.2.3.4.3

3.2.3.4.4

3.2.3.4.5

3.2 .3.4.5.1

3.2 .3.4.5.2

3.2.3.4.5.3

3.2.3.4.5.4

3.2.3.4.5.5

3.2.3.5

3.2.3.5. 1

3.2.3.5.2

3.2.3.5.3

3.2.3.5.4

3.2.3.5.5

3.2.3.5.6

3.2.3.5.7

3.2.3.5.8

3.2.3.6

3.2.3.6. 1

3.2.4

3.2.4. 1

3.2.4.2

3.2.4.2.1

3.2.4.2.2

3.2.4.2.3

3.2.4.2.4

3.2.4.2.5

3.2.4.2.6

3.2.4.2.7

3.2.4.3

3.2.4.4

3.2.4 .5

3.2.4.6

3.2.4.7

3.2.4.8

3.2.4.9

3.2.4. 10

3.2.4.11

3.2.4.12

3.2.4.13

3.2.4.14

3.2.4.15

3.2.4.16

3.2.4.17

3.2.4.17. 1

3.2.4.17.2

3.2.4.17.3

3.2.4. 18

3.2.4.18.1

3.2.4.18 .2

3.2 .4.18.3

3.2.4.19

3.2.4.19.1

3.2.4.19.2

3.2.4.19.3

3.2.4.20

3.2.4.20 .1

3.2.4.20.2

3.2.4.20.3

3.2.5

3.2.5.1

3.2.5.2

3.2.6

3.2.6.1

3.2.6.2

3.2.7

3.2.7.1

3.2.7.2

3.2.7.3

3.2.7.4

3.2.7.4.1

3.2.7.4.2

3.2.8

3.2.8. 1

3.2.8.2

3.2.8.3

3.2.9

3.2.9.1

3.2.9.2

3.2.9.3

3.2.9.4

3.2.9.5

3.2.9.6

3.2.9.7

3.2.9.8

3.2.10

3.2.10.l

3.2.