LTAMDS_PPON__14_May_2019_Final_PAO.docx

LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR (LTAMDS)

PROTOTYPE PROJECT OPPORTUNITY NOTICE (PPON)

Submitted under Other Transaction Agreement # W15QKN-19-Z-0501

Urgent Material Release (UMR) 4QFY22

14 May 2019

ISSUED BY:

U.S. Army Contracting Command – New Jersey Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

PPON Issue Date: 14 May 2019 Proposal Due Date: 9 July 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Purpose & Authority[footnoteRef:1] [1: For additional information please refer to the Department of Defense (DoD), Other Transactions Guide, Version 1.0, dated November 2018 https://www.dau.mil/guidebooks/Shared%20Documents%20HTML/Other%20Transactions%20(OT)%20Guide.aspx]

The Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) affords a potential Offeror the opportunity to build, test and deliver six LTAMDS Production Representative Units (PRUs) under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b, Other Transaction Authority (OTA) with the potential of a follow-on production contract for an additional quantity of up to 16 LTAMDS.

1.2 Background

The Government will execute a Middle Tier Acquisition rapid acquisition interim approach for LTAMDS in accordance with Section 804 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law 114-92) authority. Section 804 authority allows the Government to rapidly develop, test and field prototypes that have been demonstrated in an operational environment within five years of the approved requirement. This authority supports the Army’s competitive plan to conduct a Sense-Off in 3QFY19, where qualifying Offerors will demonstrate their proposed LTAMDS solutions at a Government test range. Based upon the aforementioned evaluation of performance data from the Sense-Off, Digital Simulation and the proposal submittal, and other artifacts requested herein, the Government anticipates selection of a single Offeror in 4QFY19 to produce six PRUs for an Urgent Materiel Release (UMR) fielding in FY22.

The Government has previously conducted multiple Industry Days, reviewed numerous industry white papers, and evaluated the results of other market research. The collective analysis indicates that several Offerors have potential LTAMDS solutions that could address the operational needs in the near term and provide future growth as technologies mature. This LTAMDS PPON solicits potential solutions/concepts that can be matured to address the LTAMDS requirements.

1.3 Acquisition Approach

1.3.1 Build, Test and Field Six Prototypes: The U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) - New Jersey (NJ) (ACC-NJ), on behalf of the LTAMDS Product Office, is seeking proposals for new, innovative solutions to address LTAMDS requirements. The LTAMDS Acquisition Strategy is a rapid prototyping initiative. Proposals, to include classified annexes and additional artifacts, are to be submitted under this LTAMDS PPON. The Selecting Official will select the proposal that presents the best value to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation results.

1.3.2 This competitive OTA acquisition will result in a Firm-Fixed-Price award to a single Offeror. The anticipated period of performance for this project is three years estimated to begin September 2019 through September 2022.

1.3.3 An LTAMDS OTA award will be made to the best overall approach that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Performance will require access to classified and otherwise controlled data and possession of a U.S. facilities clearance. An Offeror will be required to demonstrate its capability to access, receive, store, and safeguard the data required to execute the program.

1.3.4 Follow-on production contract will be for an additional quantity of up to 16 LTAMDS upon successful completion of a successful prototype.

1.3.5 To obtain a copy of LTAMDS Performance Specification (P-Spec) and controlled documents, interested parties must email the following completed documents:

a. DD Form 2345 Military Critical Technical Data Agreement (Attachment 1)

b. AMSTA AR Form 1350 Technical Data Questionnaire (Attachment 2)

c. Non-Disclosure/Non-Use Agreement (Attachment 3)

1.4 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) “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.

(5) “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.

(6) “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).

(7) "Other Transaction for Prototype Projects” refers to this type of OTA. This type of OTA is authorized by 10 U.S. Code § 2371b for prototype projects directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or for the improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. This type of OTA is treated by DoD as an acquisition instrument, commonly referred to as an "other transaction" for a prototype project or a Section 2371b "other transaction".

(8) “Significant Participant” means an entity 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.

(9) “Small Business” as defined by the DoD OTA Guide means a small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S. Code § 632).

1.5 Eligibility

In accordance with 10 U.S. Code § 2371b, the Offeror’s proposal must satisfy at least one of the following conditions to be considered for an LTAMDS OTA award:

(A) There is at least one non-traditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project; or

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or non-traditional defense contractors; or

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

In addition, the Offeror must have a Dunn and Bradstreet (DUNS) number and must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) to obtain a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code. This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the correct party. In general, to invoice and receive payment after award, the Offeror must register in the Invoice, Receipt, Acceptance, and Property Transfer (iRAPT) system, formerly known as Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF). The Offeror must be considered a responsible party by the AO, and is not suspended or debarred from such agreement by the Federal Government, and is not prohibited by Presidential Executive Order, or law from receiving such award.

1.6 Evaluators

ACC-NJ, with the assistance of an independent Source Selection Review Team (SSRT) (Government evaluators and Support Contractors), will review and evaluate proposals submitted in response to the LTAMDS PPON. Support Contractors are non-voting members. Technical exchanges may be held with the Offeror.

SECTION 2 – LTAMDS PPON Statement of Work

See Enclosure A (Statement of Work), B (Contract Data Requirement Lists), C (Document Summary List), D (Line Item Number Structure) and E (Contractor Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan).

See Distribution F Data Request

SECTION 3 – PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND INSTRUCTION

3.1 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 8 of this document. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to remain cognizant of further requests or amendments to this solicitation after the LTAMDS PPON is released at FedBizOpps (https://www.fbo.gov/).

3.2 The proposal shall be clearly and concisely prepared to demonstrate that the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal based on the assumption 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. Only one integrated proposal will be accepted. The Government will not accept proposals that require the integration of partial contractor proposals into an integrated whole. No assumptions shall be included in any proposal submission.

3.3 The Offeror is cautioned that “parroting” a requirement of either the LTAMDS Performance Specification (P-Spec) or the LTAMDS PPON 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.”

3.4 Proposal Submission Requirements

a. The Offeror’s Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with (IAW) the instructions provided below in the LTAMDS PPON at FedBizOpps ( https://www.fbo.gov/ ) and shall be delivered on Compact Discs (CDs) and printed copies (in binders) IAW the instructions provided in 3.5.

b. Offeror proposals will be evaluated in a careful and impartial manner pursuant to the stated criteria of this PPON. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government using the trade-off method. The below evaluation criteria will be used in the selection of an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) award. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details in the proposal to permit a complete and accurate Government evaluation.

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 8.

e. It is requested that all questions/comments regarding the LTAMDS PPON be submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days after the LTAMDS PPON is posted to FedBizOpps. 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 physical proposals on CDs and printed copies (in binders) as well as Unclassified proposal artifacts shall only be delivered to the address below. Proposals must be received on or prior to the date/time specified in the LTAMDS PPON. Proposal artifacts submitted through either email, telegraphic or facsimile will not be accepted.

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

Classified physical proposal information on CDs and printed copies (in binders) that are 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:

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).

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. The Government will not accept proposals after the closing date listed in the LTAMDS PPON.

h. The Offeror shall submit all proposal information by Tuesday, 09 July 2019 no later than 3PM central time.

i. 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. The proposal written sections shall be limited to 50 pages for each factor. If pages are printed on both sides, each side will count as a separate page. The following will not count against page limitations: volume title pages, table of contents pages, cross-referencing pages, indices, acronym lists and page dividers (used to separate proposal sections) and relevant, referenced, supporting documentation provided in an appendix in accordance with the instructions to Offerors. Annexes, documentation and attachments that are submitted by the Offeror, which are not required as part of the PPON, will count against the page limitations.

j. The Offeror may not assume that substantiating data submitted for any factor will be considered in the evaluation of other factors of the proposal. The Offeror is required to submit the information and supporting data required for the other factors within that factor’s submission. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize this substantiating data in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

k. “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, other 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.

3.5 Proposal Files

a. Format. The proposal submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Proposals shall be submitted in severable volumes based on the Factors set forth below and all information specific to each factor shall be confined to that volume. Each proposal must include all volumes and shall be submitted by the closing date and time of the PPON. Failure to provide any volume may result in the proposal being rejected. Page limitation for each volume are as follows:

1. Volume 1: Factor 1 Capability (50 page limit)

2. Volume 2: Factor 2 Past Performance (50 Page limit)

3. Volume 3: Factor 3 Schedule (50 page limit)

4. Volume 4: Factor 4 Price (No Page Limit)

5. Volume 5: Factor 5 Special License Agreement (50 page limit)

6. Volume 6: Model OTA (Attachment 13) to be filled out with comments from Offeror

Each submission shall include one (1) hard paper copy of all six (6) volumes in a binder, as well as six (6) electronic (CD) copies of the full proposal. Volume 4 Factor 4 Price, shall be submitted on a standalone disc. Price breakdown, when applicable, will include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulae intact. All electronic files shall be submitted utilizing the Microsoft Office suite of applications. All electronic files shall also be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF). If hard copy and electronic copies of the proposal differ, the hard copy will take precedence.

b. 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.

c. Proprietary information. All proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

d. Security Classification Specifications. The COMPANY shall adhere to the requirements of the DD Form 254 (Attachment 4). To preserve national security interest, the COMPANY shall ensure all aspects of the OTA and work performed are evaluated for conformance with security procedures and standards as identified in this OTA, and the DD Form 254 .

3.6 Factor 1 – Capability

The Capability Factor comprises two sub-factors: (1) Current (UMR) Capability; and (2) Future Capability. Current (UMR) capability is more important than Future capability. The Government will assess the benefits and shortcomings of the Offeror’s proposal for this factor.

Current (UMR) capability means the current design as defined in the Initial Product Baseline (iPBL)/ Generation Breakdown Listing (GBL) (Attachment 5) and is described as the capability proposed to be delivered, developed and completed during the course of OTA. Future capability is defined as the system post OTA and is the ability of the system to evolve through a P3I approach to meet all LTAMDS P-Spec requirements.

The Offeror shall provide a description, justification and substantiating data of how the proposed solution satisfies Sub-Factor 1 Current (UMR) Capability and Sub-Factor 2 Future Capability. The description shall include, at a minimum, a mapping of how the Offeror’s solution meets or will meet all the LTAMDS P-Spec requirements. The mapping shall be completed in iPBL/GBL (Attachment 5). Additionally, Offerors shall describe, justify, and substantiate how the proposed design meets requirements focusing on the following areas in descending order of importance: 1. Prerequisite Requirements, 2. TBM Defense, 3. ASM/ARM Defense, 4. Non-TBM Defense, 5. Full Sector Self Defense, 6. Electronic Protection, 7. Kill Assessment, 8. Operations and Sustainment, 9. Training, 10. Emplacement Accuracy, and 11. Mass Attack (Attachment 6). Collectively, these requirements are more important than other LTAMDS P-Spec requirements.

3.6.1 Sub-Factor 1 Current (UMR) Capability

The Offeror shall propose the iPBL/GBL, tailored from the LTAMDS P-Spec, by providing a Generation Breakdown Listing to the lowest level of indenture. The iPBL/GBL shall be provided in a searchable Microsoft Office compatible format and shall include all information requested in Attachment 5. The iPBL/GBL will be placed under Government change control at the LTAMDS award. For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contractor’s Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate how the requirement is currently satisfied. The Offeror shall not modify any language in the LTAMDS P‑Spec. The Contractor Performance Specification iPBL/GBL shall be incorporated into the LTAMDS OTA.

The Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement listed, the Offeror shall provide hyperlinked data to substantiate the performance of the proposed design using the format in Attachment 7.

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

The Offeror shall submit a sense-off demonstration report that explains how the demonstrated capability meets the LTAMDS P-Spec.

The Offeror shall submit a digital simulation report that explains how the modeled capability meets the LTAMDS P- Spec.

3.6.1.1 Substantiating Data shall be in the form of Sense-Off data, validated modeling and simulation data, Government test data, third party test data, Offeror test data, manufacturers’ specification sheets, 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 achieved by the Offeror. If the Offeror submits substantiating data for a design configuration that varies from the Sense-Off configuration, 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. 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.

3.6.2 Sub-Factor 2 Future Capability

The Offeror shall propose the iPBL/GBL, tailored from the LTAMDS P-Spec, by providing a Generation Breakdown Listing to the lowest level of indenture. In addition to the paper copy, the iPBL/GBL shall be provided in a searchable Microsoft Office compatible format and shall include all information requested in Attachment 5. For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement, the Contractor’s Performance Specification shall be annotated to indicate how any requirement that is not satisfied in current capability will be satisfied 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 Offeror shall complete the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 7). For each LTAMDS P-Spec requirement listed, the Offeror shall provide hyperlinked data to substantiate the performance of the proposed future design using the format in Attachment 7.

The Offeror shall provide an analysis and risk assessment of how the proposed future capability will be developed within the 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.

The Offeror shall provide substantiating data and risk analysis describing yearly production capacity for Future capability (potential follow-on production contracts).

3.6.2.1 Substantiating Data shall be in the form of Sense-Off data, Government 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.

3.7 Factor 2 – Past Performance

3.3.1 Offerors shall identify pertinent past history, which indicates that similar efforts of equal or greater complexity have been performed using the Offeror’s existing capability and demonstrate satisfaction of customer requirements.

3.3.2 Offerors shall submit a list of all recent Government contracts (prime and major subcontracts) in performance or awarded to the Offeror and any of its major subcontractors within the past three (3) years, or awarded earlier than three (3) years ago, but for which deliveries/performance occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past three (3) years, which are relevant to the effort required by the solicitation. Data concerning the prime Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by the Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offerors’ past performance. The Government plans to rely on existing documentation from Federal databases to the maximum extent practicable. Sources of existing information available to the Government include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The Government may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph may result in rejection or receipt of a high performance risk evaluation by the Government. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format:

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers). PLEASE NOTE: While an Offeror may submit past performance information on relevant efforts where they performed as a major subcontractor, the Government does not have privity with subcontracts and therefore, may not be able to obtain qualitative information.

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer's name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Government’s technical representative/COR, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer's name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(e) Government contract administration activity's Pre-Award Monitor's name and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, also include Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.) In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc)).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of the solicitation.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(b) For all contracts, the Offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the Offeror’s delivered product.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government SOW subparagraph number. This includes all major subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

(5) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Past Performance Questionnaires must be completed and submitted (Attachment 9). The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Officer within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of the RFP, to (insert Contracting Officer’s email address). The Offeror shall also e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list within thirty (30) calendar days after release of the RFP. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-Mail Address; Date E-Mailed to POC (month/day).

3.8 Factor 3 – Schedule

The Schedule Factor comprises two sub-factors 1) the Design Maturity and 2) the Integrated Master Schedule, both are equally important. The Government will assess the benefits and shortcomings of the Offeror’s proposal for this factor.

3.8.1 Sub-Factor 1 Design Maturity. The Offeror shall submit a current Design Maturity Baseline Self- Assessment & Definitions (Attachment 10), herein referred to as, “the Design Maturity Baseline” that assesses the current (as of proposal submission date) level of maturity based upon the maturity levels defined below. The Design Maturity Baseline shall be based upon the LTAMDS design depicted in the Offeror's LTAMDS proposal. This Design Maturity Baseline will decompose the proposed system from the system level, to major subsystems, subsystems, and to the Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) level. This shall be done for both hardware and software, which includes Computer Software Components (CSCs) and Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCIs). This Design Maturity Baseline will also be used as the starting point for the IMS that is discussed in Section 3.8.2. The Offerors shall also submit a crosswalk that traces Sense Off configuration baseline to the proposed configuration baseline.

3.8.1.1 The Offeror shall state the current maturity of each item listed in (Attachment 10) using the definitions in Attachment 10 Tab. 3. Note that only the highest level of maturity should be shown in the table. Supporting data will be provided to support the Offeror’s statement of the maturity of an item from Pre-Preliminary Design Review (Pre-PDR) to its current claimed state. For example, if a LRU has a current state of Qualification (Qual) then the supporting data should include all Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) data as well as final Qual data. Note that “Sense Off” data will be treated as supporting data for the Offeror’s claimed maturity. For example, if an Offeror’s “Sense Off” item is not relevant to his proposed design then it should be claimed as “Pre-PDR”. Likewise, if an Offeror’s “Sense Off” item is a fielded production item that meets all the requirements of the proposed design then it should be claimed as “Production”.

3.8.1.2 Substantiating data submitted for the LTAMDS Design Maturity evaluation shall be in the form of Sense-Off data, validated modeling and simulation data, Government test data, third party test data, Offeror test data, manufacturers’ specification sheets, 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 achieved by the Offeror. If the Offeror submits substantiating data for a design configuration that varies from the Sense-Off configuration, 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. 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. Sense-off data, Digital Simulation data, and any associated reports will be provided to participants by the LTAMDS Sense-Off Analysis Team within 10 days after the final participant’s demonstration is complete.

3.8.1.3 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.

3.8.1.4 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.

3.8.1.5 Sense-Off data shall be submitted in its entirety and annotated as such.

3.8.1.6 Additionally, the Offeror shall develop an LTAMDS Description of the proposed LTAMDS solution, which is interoperable with the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) Engagement Operations Center (EOC) and Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) family of interceptors. 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.

3.8.2 Sub-Factor 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 11 (LTAMDS Schedule) of the LTAMDS PPON. 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 technical start point for the IMS shall be the design maturity baseline matrix submitted above for the system, major sub-systems, sub-systems, and LRUs to include the software equivalents. 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.

3.8.2.1 The LTAMDS 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 network);

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

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

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

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

3.8.2.3 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.

3.8.2.4 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.

3.8.2.5 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. Three-point assessments will be for best case, worst case, and most likely case. 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%.

3.9 Factor 4 – Price

The Offeror shall provide LTAMDS Pricing, in Excel 2013 format with all formulas intact. All pricing shall be fixed amounts. All line item numbers will be summed for a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors may propose sub-milestone payments to supplement the Milestone Payment Schedule located at Table 6 in the Statement of Work. For each identified Milestone Number, the sum of all proposed sub milestones (within that milestone) and the milestone itself may not exceed the percentage of award for that applicable Milestone. Additionally, proposed milestone payments must be linked directly to a meaningful deliverable.

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. For any required GFP, the contractor shall propose a listing with required delivery dates, quantities, configuration, and acceptance terms. In order to eliminate any potential unfair competitive advantage which could be gained through use of Government Furnished Property a rental equivalent factor shall be added to each offer which is predicated on the use of Government property. Offerors shall propose the per unit value of Government property for each LIN/quantity range in accordance with FAR 52.245-9, Use and Charges in the Price Matrix attachment to the solicitation. Offerors shall provide detailed calculations demonstrating how the per unit rental value was derived and documentation supporting the rental charges in sufficient detail to permit verification of the rental charges and evaluation of the per unit rental value.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Each agreement entered into by an official referred to in 10 U.S.C. 2371b subsection (a) to carry out a project under that subsection that provides for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000 shall include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General, in the discretion of the Comptroller General, to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement.

3.10 Factor 5- Special License Agreement

1. The Offeror shall submit a fully executable Special License Agreement (SLA) that clearly outlines all terms and conditions required to grant the rights as described below including any limitations, restrictions, or other provisions. The Offeror may provide separate terms and conditions for the LTAMDS SLA. Attachment 12 – LTAMDS Sample SLA may be utilized and reflects the Government’s preferred SLA terms and conditions. Any royalty costs for third party patents shall be included in the SLA. The price/costs of the SLA will not be included in the TEP calculation in Factor 4, but will be evaluated as part of the Factor 5 evaluation described below (see SECTION 4 – BASIS OF EVALUATION).

The SLA for the LTAMDS shall:

1. Include conditions for the Government to receive at least LTAMDS Purpose Rights to the data where the Government is granted less than Unlimited Rights Exemplary conditions include:

a. meeting a minimum quantity requirement; and/or

b. meeting a dollar threshold value; and/or

c. waiting for period of time; and/or

d. other conditions.

2. Incorporate rights previously granted under this OTA. For example, in this OTA, the Government is granted Limited Rights to data developed at private expense and Unlimited Rights to data that is form, fit, and function. Such previously granted rights shall be incorporated into the SLAs.

3. The proposed SLA’s terms and conditions shall be incorporated into the Offeror’s SLA and submitted with its proposal to the PPON. Awardees may be granted an additional opportunity to improve upon the SLA terms and conditions prior to execution of the SLA in conjunction with the follow-on production award.

3.11 Intellectual Property Rights

The Proposal will identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government’s use of that intellectual property (including any patents or patent applications) in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013(e) Identification and Delivery of Data to be Furnished with Restrictions on Use, Release or Disclosure, DFARS 252.227-7014(e) Identification and delivery of computer software and computer software documentation to be furnished with restrictions on use, release, or disclosure, and/or DFARS 252.227-7017 (Jan. 2011) Identification and assertion of use, release, or disclosure restrictions.

The Government may request the Offeror provide additional information/detail provided in the Proposal to clarify intellectual property rights assertions. Include documentation proving your ownership of or possession of appropriate licensing rights to all patented inventions (or inventions for which a patent application has been filed) that will be utilized under your proposal for a system demonstrator.