CTSO INC1 PPON - Amd 3 - 4MAR22.pdf

Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON)

For

Close Terrain Shaping Obstacle (CTSO) Increment 1 (INC1)

Common Anti-Vehicle Munition (CAVM) Based Top Attack (TA) System

Solicitation Number: W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

Amendment 3 Issue Date: 4 March 2022

AMENDMENT 1 REVISIONS NOTED IN YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS

AMENDMENT 3 REVISIONS IN BLUE HIGHLIGHTS

Issued by:

U.S. Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

In Support of:

Project Manager Close Combat Systems

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

PPON Issue Date: 6 JANUARY 2022

Proposal Due Date: 1500 EST on 14 MARCH 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background

1.2 Acquisition Approach

1.3 Definitions

1.4 Eligibility

1.5 Evaluators

SECTION 2 – PPON STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

SECTION 3 – PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 General Instructions

3.2 Submission Information

3.3 Proposal Preparation

3.4 Proposal Submission Content

SECTION 4 – BASIS FOR AWARD

4.1 General Evaluation Process

4.2 Evaluation Factors

4.3 Relative Order of Importance

4.4 Rating Definitions

SECTION 5 – OTHER INFORMATION

SECTION 6 – CONTACT INFORMATION

SECTION 7 – ATTACHMENTS

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background

The Army and Joint Forces require the capability to shape terrain with lethal obstacles across the battlespace.

Lethal obstacles are a force multiplier that enable outnumbered joint forces to fight and win against near-peer enemies, while reducing friendly force casualties. Increment 1 (INC1) is the first of three increments which will progressively add to the Close Terrain Shaping Obstacle (CTSO) capability. The envisioned CTSO INC1

Common Anti-Vehicle Munition (CAVM) based top attack (TA) system solicited through this Prototype Project

Opportunity Notice (PPON), hereafter also referred to as CTSO INC1, will support the CAVM based Abbreviated

Capability Development Document (A-CDD). The CAVM based A-CDD calls for a munition design that leverages as much of the CTSO design as practical for the future mid and deep systems. The design will provide an U.S. Landmine Policy compliant TA capability to address the Army’s directed close tactical obstacle capability gap as an enduring solution.

The CTSO INC1 system will include an anti-vehicle TA with standoff capability. The system will also employ modular open systems architecture, utilize cyber, command, control, communications, and computer (C5) capabilities, and display authoritative safety information to the operator to enable a disarmed safe state (on-off-on).

1.2 Acquisition Approach

The purpose of this PPON is to competitively solicit and award one prototype Other Transaction Agreement

(OTA) under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b for CTSO INC1 to a source capable of prototyping a lethal, command and control capable Terrain Shaping Obstacle (TSO) TA prototype. The prototype OTA will be awarded on an expenditure based (cost plus fixed fee) basis and the duration for the prototype OTA is estimated to be five (5) years. This prototype OTA is anticipated for award no later than August 2022, pending availability of funding.

The overarching goal is to acquire and issue to Soldiers a number of prototype CTSO INC 1 systems and conduct eighteen (18) months of capability development followed by six (6) months of contractor verification testing intended to test and evaluate the acquired prototype system. The Government intends to conduct qualification testing twenty-four (24) months after award. The Government may decide to execute one (1) of two (2) paths or a combination of both.

Path 1: Qualification and test and evaluation pursuant to an Urgent Materiel Release.

Path 2: Qualification and test and evaluation pursuant to a Type Classification and Full Materiel Release.

The CTSO INC1 program intends to provide early prototypes in support of a Soldier Touch Point (STP) at six (6) months and twelve (12) months after agreement award.

The CTSO INC1 program intends to use the STPs to determine the appropriate levels of capability attributes required for the system. Upon review of cost and schedule constraints, the Government may decide to pursue all, or a subset of the tasks identified in the Statement of Work (SOW).

Iterative Prototyping: The prototype OTA awarded under this PPON will allow for an iterative prototyping process. This iterative prototyping process will allow for the adaptation and modification of the prototype technology to meet additional unique and discrete purposes/mission sets. These sequential prototype iterations may result in a modification, by mutual agreement, of the original prototype project.

Follow-On Production Contract or Transaction: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2371b(f), and upon a determination that this competitively awarded prototype project has been successfully completed as defined in the SOW, or in the event that a particularly favorable or unexpected result is accomplished that justifies transition to production, this prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

Should the Government pursue a follow-on production award, a production scope supporting this prototype project would be provided and a separate solicitation request would evaluate production pricing. The anticipated scale of a follow-on production contract or transaction resultant from this prototype project award is estimated to be 3,441 munitions. This number includes possible orders from foreign military sales (FMS) and other DoD entities.

For more information regarding Other Transaction (OT) regulations and policies, please refer to the Department of Defense (DoD), Other Transactions Guide, Version 1.0, dated November 2018. A copy of the Guide can be obtained by contacting the PPON Points of Contact listed in Section 6.

1.3 Definitions

Reference Attachment 7- Inc. 1 Terms and Conditions, Article I, B. Definitions

1.4 Eligibility

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(d), Offerors shall meet one of the following conditions to be considered for an award:

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

(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 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 sources other than the Federal Government.

The eligibility of proposals under conditions (A) and (B) above is subject to a determination by the Government that the significance of the proposed nontraditional defense contractor and/or nonprofit research institution participation satisfies the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(d). Offerors should refer to Attachment 9 -

Supplement to Business Status Certification, for guidance on developing a proposal that can satisfy conditions (A) and (B).

If the Government determines that an Offeror’s proposal does not meet conditions (A) or (B) above, the

Government may, at its sole discretion, may request additional rationale and support or provide the Offeror with an opportunity to propose an alternative cost share arrangement that meets condition (C) above in accordance with

§ 2371b(d).

In addition, Offerors must have a Dun 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 right party. In general, to invoice and receive payment after award of an

OTA, Offerors must register in Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise

Environment (PIEE).

The Offeror is subject to a determination by the Agreements Officer that it is a responsible party that is not suspended or debarred by the Federal Government, and is not prohibited by Presidential Executive Order, or law from receiving such award. Additionally, Offerors who attempt to circumvent the eligibility requirements/conditions may be excluded from consideration at the Agreements Officer’s discretion.

1.5 Evaluators

ACC-NJ, with the assistance of Government subject matter experts, will review and evaluate proposals submitted in response to this PPON. There will be no Government contractor personnel involved in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this PPON.

SECTION 2 – PPON STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

The Government is seeking innovative solutions for the CTSO INC1 prototype system. The contractor will have a limited timeframe to develop the prototype followed by system testing and prototype production as described by the milestone schedule. The prototype system shall be comprised of both Class V and Class VII components. This program seeks to leverage non-developmental items (NDI), Commercial off-the-shelf (COTs), and novel solutions to improve the Government evolution of this TSO.

A hand emplaced TA anti-vehicle system will be developed. The munition design will serve as the basis for a common munition to be used in close, mid, and deep obstacles. The TA capability will be controlled by a remote control station (RCS). An obstacle planning capability will also be developed. The RCS will have the capability to import a plan generated by the obstacle planning capability to facilitate field emplacement. A solution is sought for authoritative data to be provided to the operator to control the system.

The Government is seeking affordable solutions that maximize operational capabilities while minimizing logistics footprints. Considerations should be given to the survivability, reliability, maintainability, portability, and long-range communications of the system. Additional tasks include sending obstacle information to the Army command and control (C2) system. The Contractor shall design and implement system C2 processes that support the User with the timely collection and accurate presentation of information in dynamic operational environments.

Developed C2 information, decision, and execution management processes will enable the User to observe, orient, decide and act in a decisive manner in kinetic environments.

Additionally, a full task trainer, an exportable TA version, and a TA emplacement trainer will be developed in conjunction with the primary effort. Design solutions and prototypes shall include progress deliveries to the

Government to support touch and knowledge points. The STPs will evaluate the suitability of the concept and help direct which features to finalize.

The Government seeks successful qualification and documentation in support of type classification and Full

Material Release (FMR) as described in Army Regulation (AR) 770-3. To meet the milestones, the contractor will complete design, modeling, and simulation (M&S), development, integration, product acceptance, manufacturing technology processes and equipment, and test.

The DRAFT SOW is provided as Attachment 1 to this PPON.

SECTION 3 – PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 General Instructions

3.1.1 The costs of preparing, submitting, and participating in proposal efforts are not considered an allowable direct charge to any contract or agreement with the Government.

3.1.2 The Government does not anticipate negotiating the Draft OTA Terms and Conditions, with the possible exception of minor deviations (reference Attachment 7). If the Offeror cannot accept the Government’s

Terms and Conditions, then the Government reserves right to award to an alternative Offeror.

3.1.3 The Government also does not anticipate changes to the draft SOW prior to award that would result in additional costs or the need for the Contractor to resubmit a cost proposal.

3.1.4 Any PPON amendments or general questions and answers will be issued via the Beta.SAM.gov website within the Notice for this PPON, W15QKN-22-R-0JKH.

3.1.5 Advertising brochures are not desired.

3.1.6 Multiple proposals may be submitted by the same organization; however, each written proposal must be separate and distinct from one another.

3.1.7 The proposal(s) shall be valid for six (6) months after date of submission.

3.1.8 All proposal submission information shall be unclassified and will be protected as competitive source selection information.

3.1.9 The proposal shall be written in the English language and conform to the instructions herein.

3.1.10 Technical and/or computer software data with military application may require appropriate approval, authorization, or license for lawful exportation.

3.1.11 All communications regarding the contents of the PPON and its attachments shall be addressed to the

PPON points of contact identified in Section 6 of this PPON.

3.1.12 All proposal submissions shall be submitted through the DoD Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) website.

The Government will provide interested parties with a proposal drop off request via the DoD SAFE website. Note that the website is intended to exchange unclassified files up to 8.0 gigabytes (GB). See

Section 3.2.4 for further information on obtaining the DoD SAFE proposal drop off request from the

Government.

3.2 Submission Information

3.2.1 Due Dates

3.2.1.1 DoD SAFE proposal drop off link requests by parties interested in submitting a proposal in response to this PPON are due to the PPON points of contact listed in Section 6 by 1500 EST on 7 MARCH 2022.

This will allow the Government sufficient time to provide the interested parties with the DoD SAFE proposal drop off request on 8 MARCH 2022, as the request links are only valid for 14 days from issuance of the DoD SAFE proposal drop off request. If the link is not received by 9 MARCH 2022, contact the PPON points of contact immediately.

3.2.1.2 Questions may be submitted via email submission to the PPON points of contact upon release of the

PPON on Beta.SAM.gov but no later than 1500 EST on 14 JANUARY 2022 in order for the

Government to provide a timely response prior to the proposal submission due date. Reference Section

3.2.2 and its subsections for more information.

3.2.1.3 Proposal submissions are due by 1500 EST on 14 MARCH 2022. Reference Sections 3.23 – 3.24 and its subsections for more information.

3.2.1.4 Any DoD SAFE proposal drop off link requests, questions, proposal submissions, or modifications or revisions of a proposal received by the Government after the exact time specified in Sections 3.2.1.1 –

3.2.1.3 will be determined as late and will not be considered, except in the event of a Government declared system error. As such, it is strongly encouraged for Offerors to keep a record/screenshot of any

DoD SAFE completion notices and email submissions.

3.2.2 Questions and Answers

3.2.2.1 Any questions/comments regarding this PPON shall be submitted via email submission to the PPON points of contact and refer to specific text of the PPON in the following format:

E-mail Subject: VendorName Questions/Comments Solicitation No. W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

Questions/Comments will be formatted as depicted in Table 1 below to include:

Each Question/Comment shall be on one row.

Offerors shall NOT INSERT BLANK ROWS between each Question/Comment

Column headings shall appear at the top of each page when printing

Questions and Comments shall be submitted as a MS Excel file (compatible with MS Excel 2013) attachment with file naming convention: VendorName_Qs_PPON_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH.xls

Table 1 – Questions and Comment Format

Offeror Company Name:

Item # Government File Name Page # Para # / Line # Question/Comment

1. Insert Government File Name here ## ## Insert question/comment here

3.2.2.2 The Government will only accept written questions/comments to ensure that all Offeror inquiries have been addressed in advance of the proposal due date/time. This limitation excludes any Technical

Exchanges that may be initiated by the Government, if deemed necessary after the proposal submission due date.

3.2.2.3 It is anticipated the Government will provide a Question & Answer compilation document and/or revised

PPON documentation that will be uploaded under this PPON announcement number in Beta.SAM.gov as deemed necessary by the Government. See paragraph Section 3.2.1.2 for the suspense date/time for any questions.

3.2.3 Proposal Submission

3.2.3.1 Each Offeror shall submit its proposal electronically for Years 1 to 5 in accordance with the PPON, consisting of the documentation required per PPON Section 3 (and its sub-sections) for CTSO INC1

Tasks (Tasks 1 thru 6) as an expenditure based (cost plus fixed fee) effort and a rough order of magnitude

(ROM) for CTSO INC 3 Tasks (Tasks 7 and 8). A full cost proposal for the ROM scope may be solicited during prototype project performance. The proposal submission requirements for the ROM scope will be defined at a later date, at the time of the Government request. Proposals shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and validity substantiation of stated claims.

Proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the Government requirements but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

3.2.3.2 Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of its company or the company’s potential ability to fulfill the requirements sought in this PPON. Proposals will be evaluated based on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. For verification purposes, the Government may verify the information provided by contacting the named point(s) of contact identified in the Offeror’s Critical

Skills and/or Demonstrated Performance volume submission.

3.2.4 Submission via DoD SAFE

3.2.4.1 Offerors shall submit proposals electronically through DoD SAFE using the drop-off request link received from NoReplyTo@mail.mil, which was generated as a result of completing the required request identified in Section 3.2.1.1. This is the only acceptable method of proposal submission. Offerors are strongly encouraged to make sure this email address is not on a junk mail senders list to ensure receipt of the link.

3.2.4.2 The drop-off request email message will indicate the Government point of contact who initiated the request and contain the link, which is only valid for 14 days from the time of the email message. SAFE supports file sizes up to 8.0 GB for uploading. Once the Offeror clicks on the link, it will proceed to the website to submit the proposal. Any difficulties encountered during this process, contact the PPON points of contact.

3.2.4.3 Once at the DoD SAFE site, manually enter the email addresses of all PPON points of contact listed in

Section 6 to ensure all points of contact receive the submission.

3.2.4.4 Attach all proposal files using the following naming convention: VendorName_Vol_#_W15QKN-22-R-

0JKH (Example: Company_A_Vol_1_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH)

3.2.4.5 After including all documents in the Offeror’s submission, click “Drop Off Files”, which will prompt the

Offeror to confirm there is no classified information being transmitted.

3.2.4.6 Upon confirmation, the website will indicate the drop-off is completed. It will provide a list of all files submitted and contain a request code. The Government will consider a response to be on time or late based on the Offeror’s last file “UPLOAD” date/time. All Offerors shall ensure the “UPLOAD” date and time is before the PPON submission date and time (Eastern Time).

3.2.4.7 After submitting through SAFE, send a separate notification e-mail stating that a response submission was made to the Points of Contact (AO and AS) listed above in Table 1 with the following Subject:

“VendorName Submitted PPON: W15QKN-22-R-0JKH”

3.2.4.8 The body of the note shall be short and include the Offeror’s Point of Contact.

3.3 Proposal Preparation

3.3.1 The Offeror shall prepare the proposal submission as set forth in Table 2.

Table 2 - Proposal File Organization and Page Limits

CTSO Increment 1 Proposal Submission

Proposal Volume: Filename and Page Count

Volume I, Technical (Evaluation Factor 1):

Subfactor 1 – Munitions

Subfactor 2 – C5

Subfactor 3 – Data Rights

Page Count by Subfactor:

1. Munitions = 35 pages, allocation of pages at Offeror’s discretion.

2. C5 = 35 pages, allocation of pages at Offeror’s discretion

3. Data Rights = no page limit

File name: VendorName_Vol_1_Tech_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

If it is necessary to split the volume into parts due to file size, use the following naming convention:

1. VendorName_Vol_1_Tech_Munitions_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

2. VendorName_Vol_1_Tech_C5_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

3. VendorName_Vol_1_Tech_Data_Rights_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

Volume II, Management Support (Evaluation

Factor 2):

Subfactor 1- Critical Skills

Subfactor 2- Demonstrated Performance

Page Count by Subfactor:

1. Critical Skills = 25 pages, allocation of pages at Offeror’s discretion.

2. Demonstrated Performance = 25 pages, allocation of pages at

Offeror’s discretion

File name: VendorName_Vol_2_Management Support_W15QKN-

22-R-0JKH

If it is necessary to split the volume into parts due to file size, use the following naming convention:

1. VendorName_Vol_2_Critical Skills_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

2. VendorName_Vol_2_Demo Perf_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

Volume III, Schedule (Evaluation Factor 3): 25 pages, allocation of pages at Offeror’s discretion

File name: VendorName_Vol_3_Schedule_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

Volume IV, Cost/Price (Evaluation Factor 4): Completion and submission of :

1. Element of Cost Proposal in Excel format (with formulas intact)-

Unsanitized; using the naming convention:

VendorName_Vol_4_Cost_Proposal_Unsanitized_W15QKN-22-R-

0JKH

2. Sanitized Cost Proposal – Shall be the same as the cost proposal but with all the costs/prices deleted. This documentation will be provided to the evaluators for evaluation purposes only using the naming conventions:

VendorName_Vol_4_Cost_Proposal_Sanitized_W15QKN-22-R-

0JKH

3. Cost Narrative with Supporting documentation in Word or PDF format, submitted as a ZIP file if necessary; using the naming convention:

VendorName_Vol_4_Cost_Narrative_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

4. Price Matrix-Attachment 6; using the naming convention:

VendorName_Vol_4_Attachment 6_Price Matrix_W15QKN-22-

R0JkH

Volume V, Miscellaneous Agreement

Documentation

1. Offeror Cover Letter

2. Draft OTA Terms and Conditions (Reference

Attachment 7)

3. DD Form 2345 (See Table 3 – Attachment List)

4. Non-Disclosure and Non-Use Agreement, Version 2, dated 20 January 2022 (See Table 3 –

Attachment List)

5. AMSTA-AR Form 1350 (See Table 3 –

Attachment List)

6. Completed ABSC (Reference Attachments 8 and

9)

7. Completed Special Licensing Agreement template, if applicable (Attachment 10)

Return with File name: VendorName_Vol_5_Docs_W15QKN-22-R-

0JHK.pdf

No page limit for any of the miscellaneous agreement documentation.

If it is necessary to split the volume into parts, use the following naming convention:

1. VendorName_Vol_5_Misc_ Letter_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

2. VendorName_Vol_5_Misc_OTA_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

3. VendorName_Vol_5_Misc_2345_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

4. VendorName_Vol_5_Misc_NDA_V2_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

5. VendorName_Vol_5_Misc_1350_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

6. VendorName_Vol_5_Misc_ABSC_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

7. VendorName_Vol_5_SLA_W15QKN-22-R-0JKH

3.3.2 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read and will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Table 2 above contains the page limitations.

3.3.3 Page Size and Format

Two Page Formats are defined:

Format 1: Each face of an 8.5 x 11 inches sheet of paper, with the digital submission viewed in print format.

Format 2: Each face of an 8.5 x 14 inches sheet of paper, with the digital submission viewed in print format. This format is designated for .xlsx Attachments and diagrams or images only.

Each volume shall be clearly identified, and the text shall begin at the top of each page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and PPON number in the header and/or footer.

Format 1: Adobe or Microsoft Word (.pdf, .doc or .docx file extensions) files shall use the following page set-up parameters:

Margins (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) = 1.0 inch

From Edge Header, Footer = 0.5 inches

Page Size, Width = 8.5 inches

Page Size, Height = 11 inches

Paragraphs = Separated by at least one blank line

Format 2: Microsoft Excel (.xls or .xlsx file extensions) and diagram or image files (.pdf) shall use the following page set-up parameters:

Margins (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) = 1.0 inch

From Edge Header, Footer = 0.5 inches

Page Size, Width (Maximum) = 11 inches

Page Size, Height (Maximum) = 14 inches

Except when specifically addressed in the instructions for an Attachment, the reproduced sections of the PPON document and the items in Section 3.3.4, the font type shall be Arial and text size shall be no less than 12 point.

Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. For electronic submissions, page limitations shall be calculated as though the document were printed as a hard copy proposal.

3.3.4 Tables, Charts, Graphs, and Figures

These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and where they exceed one page, shall follow Section 3.3.3 Page

Size standards. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point font size. For electronic submissions, page limitations shall be calculated as though the document were printed as a hard copy proposal. For diagrams and images only – font and sizes may be different (as small as 8) but must be legible.

3.3.5 Glossary/Acronym List

Each non-price volume shall contain a Glossary/Acronym List of all abbreviations/acronyms used and a definition for each within that volume. Glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

3.3.6 Stand Alone Volumes

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Within a proposal volume, cross-referencing is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

3.3.7 Pricing Information Location

Pricing information of any kind shall not be included in Volume I – Technical, Volume II – Management Support, Volume III – Schedule, and Volume V –Miscellaneous Agreement Documents; it shall only appear in Volume IV

Cost/Price Factor.

3.3.8 Number of Copies and Digital File Format

Proposals shall be submitted in electronic (searchable) format and organized as defined in 3.3.1. Self-extracting

.exe files, and hyperlinks, are not acceptable. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office or searchable Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including factors, Attachments, exhibits, and annexes, if any.

3.4 Proposal Submission Content

Proposals shall address the Government requirements outlined in the PPON and its attachments. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with the proposal preparation instructions. Each

Offeror bears responsibility for submitting its offer by the specified date/time.

3.4.1 Volume I, Technical (Evaluation Factor 1)

This Volume shall describe the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and solution for meeting the performance and capability requirements specified in this PPON and the SOW, to include its supporting documents. Responses will be evaluated as defined in Section C - Evaluation Factors for Award. This submission includes three subfactors:

A. Subfactor 1 – Munitions

B. Subfactor 2 – Command and Control, Communications, Computers, and Cyber (C5)

C. Subfactor 3 – Data Rights

3.4.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Munitions

3.4.1.1.1 The Offeror shall provide a description of the proposed design for the munition system. The Offeror may include text, photos, illustrations, and model/drawing extracts. The description shall include subsystems and components. The Offeror shall demonstrate a clear understanding of system engineering (SE) principles in their design process, including compliance with all SE design milestones. The Offeror shall clearly trace the proposed munition design to the Government requirements defined in the System Requirement Description (SRD).

3.4.1.1.2 The Offeror shall address the current maturity, risks and opportunities, schedule drivers, and performance trade-offs for all major munition subsystems. The Offeror shall outline a design approach for maturing these subsystems over time, planned integration tasks, performance evaluation tasks, and how STP evaluations will be used to influence the design.

3.4.1.1.3 The Offeror shall demonstrate an ability to organize, administer, and control configuration requirements. The Offeror’s design process must be able to demonstrate incremental prototype maturity to the

Government (delivered for Government inspection, evaluation, and feedback) beyond the pace of the delivery schedule requirements and beyond the STPs and T&E milestones. The Offeror may provide examples to support claims.

3.4.1.1.4 The Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation of how their proposed concept addresses a CAVM modular payload for future delivery methods to include artillery, missile, rotary wing, and fixed wing aircraft. The

Offeror shall identify CAVM features to be prototyped under this Agreement and those CAVM features reserved only for analysis. The Offeror shall clearly describe the design path to a CAVM. The Offeror shall identify their total life cycle cost strategy including preliminary goals. The Offeror shall detail their means of tracking and achieving these total life cycle cost goals. The Offeror may provide examples of similar design efforts and their ability to meet those goals to support claims.

3.4.1.1.5 The Offeror shall describe the essential design facilities, prototyping facilities, production, tooling, equipment, processes, and process controls in place or, if not in place, a plan to demonstrate how they will be put in place in time to meet delivery schedule requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror shall describe its plan to implement a pilot manufacturing line under a follow-on agreement or contract with an ability to produce up to a rate of 55 units per month within a 12-month period.

3.4.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Command and Control, Computers, Communications, and Cyber (C5)

3.4.1.2.1 The Offeror shall describe their integrated solution for C5, which includes a planning tool, remote control station, safety device, and radios. This shall include the operation and behavior of an operating system, mapping application, command and control messaging, safety critical logic, and cyber security. The Offeror shall clearly trace the proposed C5 design to the Government requirements as described in the SOW sections 4.1.1.3 – 4.1.1.5 and as defined in the SRD, as well as clearly identifying any areas where the SRD requirements are not fully met by the proposed design. The Offeror shall address the current maturity, risks and mitigations, schedule drivers, performance trade-offs, for all major C5 subsystems. The Offeror shall outline a design approach for maturing these subsystems over time, planned integration tasks, and performance evaluation tasks. STP evaluations will be used to influence the design. The Offeror shall address their process for designing and testing an intuitive User interface. In the solution description, the Offeror shall address the plan for Mission Command integration of all

CTSO functions, including messaging, and a display of a common operating picture. The Offeror shall also define their associated certification plans.

3.4.1.2.2 The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of their system software architecture, which includes a software safety approach, operation and behavior of the operating system, safety critical logic, and C2 software as described in applicable SOW section 4.1.2 Software Engineering sub-paragraphs. The Offeror shall also provide a detailed description of their communications architecture as described within SOW section 4.1.1.4

Communications. The Offeror shall provide a narrative outlining the ability of the concept to integrate the design states, modes, and safety critical functions, along with the operation and behavior of the architecture concept from emplacement through mission completion. The Offeror shall describe methods and tools for US Government engagement throughout the development effort related to work-flow of documentation, configuration management, test artifacts, change requests, and work items. The Offeror shall cite any experience with DevOps and continuous integration.

3.4.1.2.3 The Offeror shall detail their approach to provide software deliverables allowing the Government to upgrade and maintain proprietary system software and tools, and to upgrade Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software products without additional Offeror support beyond the completion of this Agreement. See SOW sections 4.1.2.1 CTSO INC1 System Software and 4.1.2.2 Software Transition Plan for descriptions. The Offeror shall address the transition to Government for development, integration, and test environments, including validation of mirrored lab environments. This will include training, use of ancillary hardware and software

(including COTS and contractor developed), and implementation of a software maintenance port.

3.4.1.2.4 The Offeror shall clearly present their design and development process related to block capabilities

(including integration, test processes, software quality, and assurance) illustrating advancement to demonstrate progression of maturity over time. Planned integration tasks and performance evaluations (such as sprint reviews) shall be clearly explained in the proposal. The Offeror’s usage of scrums, sprints, and stakeholder engagement shall be clearly captured in the description, including the process to realign resources as described in SOW section

4.1.2.19 Software Review, User Test, and Evaluation. A Software Development Preliminary Plan shall be provided reflecting the scrum and sprint approach with anticipated challenges documented and mitigations defined.

3.4.1.2.5 The Offeror shall describe their internal and subcontracting testing facilities and equipment planned for evaluating C5 suitability, performance, reliability, and vulnerability. The Offeror shall address their ability to simulate operationally realistic environments and adversaries. The Offeror shall provide clear correlations of their planned in process testing and simulation and how those will directly relate to future certification tasks.

3.4.1.2.6 The Offeror shall clearly detail their design approach for an external safety device to handle safety critical communication, commands, and authoritative safety display interfacing between the Remote Control

Station System munition as described within SOW sections 4.1.1.6. Authoritative Safety Information, 4.1.2.1

CTSO INC1 System Software, and 4.7.5. Authoritative Safety Information, and within the SRD. The Offeror shall address all aspects of the safety device including software, hardware, authoritative safety display, and safety certification of the safety device. The Offeror shall describe in detail any real time safety critical software. The

Offeror shall address their plans for analyzing the required level of rigor, and applicable coding standards when writing software to insure safety functions and overall software integrity of the system are maintained regardless of input or system errors. The Offeror must demonstrate a safety device design that has considered obsolescence risks for the next ten (10) years with ability for the Government to acquire additional devices incrementally during that timeframe.

3.4.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Data Rights

3.4.1.3.1 The Offeror must clearly state data rights assertions within its proposal submission. The Government’s expectation is to receive Unlimited Rights for all data developed or delivered under the intended Agreement. Any exceptions to Unlimited Rights must be clearly stated in the proposal and Attachment 1 – Statement of Work must have Section 9 completed.

3.4.1.3.2 If the Offeror does not propose Unlimited Rights, then they shall submit proposed Special Licensing

Agreements (SLA) that clearly outline all terms and conditions required to grant munition and C5 data rights, including any limitations, restrictions, or other provisions. For the munition SLA, the Offeror shall address the

Government’s ability to procure, modify, or upgrade munitions without additional Offeror support at the completion of this development. For the C5 SLA, the Offeror shall address all software elements including the source code, application software, firmware, operating system, device drivers for hardware interfaces to all subsystems, interfaces for inputs and outputs to other systems to include systems simulated for testing, training, and maintenance, and all previously developed software. CTSO operational (application) software shall include all developed and modified computer software that is executed by and associated with the software execution being processed within the processing hardware embedded within the CTSO. All algorithms as well as computer simulations developed for this program shall be considered applications software. Support software is comprised of all software and technical data that are used for, or associated with the generation, design, development, testing, integration, acceptance, execution, verification, and validation of the application software. Firmware is considered to be comprised of, but is not limited to, two elements: the technical data whose image is “burned” directly into memory and the ancillary software development environment needed for the image generation. Any royalty costs for third party patents shall be included in each SLA. The price of the SLAs will not be included in the Price Evaluation Factor, but will be taken into consideration when making a selection decision.

3.4.2 Volume II, Management Support (Evaluation Factor 2)

3.4.2.1 Sub-Factor 1- Critical Skills Evaluation

The Offeror shall describe its personnel management strategy to ensure that it is proven, complete, and feasible to meet the requirements of the CTSO Increment 1 PPON. Specifically the Offeror shall address how it will provide and retain the critical skills in program management, modeling and simulation, software development, electronics, communications, application development, safety engineering, sensors, system integration, energetics and warhead design, testing, integrated product support (human systems integration (HSI), training, maintenance, packaging, handling, storage and transportation (PHS&T)) and supply chain management. The Offeror shall describe its approach for independently integrating Combat Engineering knowledge into their design effort.

3.4.2.2 Subfactor 2– Demonstrated Performance Evaluation Factor

3.4.2.2.1 The Offeror shall provide relevant prior examples of completing development programs and achieving baseline SE design Milestones. The Offeror shall address historical examples of development technical data that transitioned to production.

3.4.2.2.2 The Offeror shall demonstrate prior experience in achieving development of relevant items having similar performance parameters and environmental conditions. The Offeror will provide a brief narrative explanation of how/why they believe the items were similar to CTSO. The Offeror shall demonstrate prior experience in consistently complying with system requirement descriptions or equivalent technical data requirements, and key Milestone review exit criteria. The Offeror shall describe corrective and preventative actions taken during those developments. The Offeror shall demonstrate their procedures to objectively measure that product will meet or exceed requirements. The Offeror shall compare customer satisfaction in terms of original development duration and actual development duration and increases in time and cost will be addressed by summary. The Offeror will address severity of quality related complaints and responsiveness to quality deficiencies. For verification purposes, the Offerors should furnish a point of contact/name, phone number, contract number, and dollar value of recent, relevant contracts. Other sources available to the Government other than those listed in the contractor’s proposal may be used to gather and evaluate criteria. For example, the

Government may use data gathered via the Past Performance Information Management System (PPIMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), pre-award offices at other major support commands, past customers, and previous contracting officials.

3.4.2.2.3 The Offeror shall describe their relevant experience with the Risk Management Framework process, including their experience tracking and implementing security controls. The Offeror will also describe their experience with cyber security, including their experience with the National Security Agency and key Milestone events such as Cyber Table Top Exercises (CTTX), Cooperative Vulnerability and Penetration Assessments

(CVPA), and obtaining the Authority-to-Operate (ATO) for similar systems. The Offeror will clearly demonstrate their understanding of the requirement for each of these events and the planned design maturity at each of these reviews. The Offeror will demonstrate prior experience in successfully executing these key Milestone events for relevant items having similar performance parameters. The Offeror will provide a brief narrative explanation of how/why they believe the items were similar to CTSO. The Offeror will describe their experience with embedded software and Nett Warrior development.

3.4.3 Volume III, Schedule (Evaluation Factor 3)

3.4.3.1 An Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) shall be provided that details all key design processes, materials, sub-components, sub-vendors, assembly, equipment, and key events e.g., SRR/SFR, SwRR, PDR, STPs, Highly

Accelerated Life Testing (HALT), Environment, Live Fire, System Verification Testing (SVT), Formal

Qualification Test (FQT), ATO, CVPA, CTTX, Operational Demonstration (OD), Initial Operational Test and

Evaluation (IOT&E), IOC, and other events key to the offer. The IMS shall include all government safety incremental and final reviews required for certification including lead-time for preparations, dry-runs, and action item resolution. The Offeror shall account for Government review times in their schedule. The IMS shall be complemented by an associated organizational chart detailing the relationship of the Offeror’s various organizational elements including subcontractor/sub-vendor and the Government.

3.4.3.2 The Government will consider resource loaded IMS with all direct costs (labor, material, subcontracts with material and labor within the subcontracts identified, ODCs, etc.) as more credible in determining an

Offeror’s ability to achieve the requirements within the period of performance.

3.4.3.3 The IMS shall clearly indicate at least one unbroken critical path that reaches from award of the OTA to final delivery. Nomenclature 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. The Offeror shall conduct a schedule analysis using a schedule analyzer tool (such as

Steelray Project Analyzer or similar). The results and Offeror interpretation of this analysis shall be provided to the Government as part of this proposal.

3.4.3.4 The Offeror shall provide a schedule risk assessment using a Monte-Carlo simulation of their IMS from

OTA award through final delivery. 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%. The schedule risk assessment and supporting data does not count towards the page limit.

3.4.3.5 The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative accompanying the IMS. This narrative will describe the relationship and resources required to complete each key Milestone, with associated mitigations.

3.4.3.6 The Offeror’s IMS shall detail the required materials, tooling, equipment, and personnel with associated lead times to obtain them in order to demonstrate how they will meet the delivery schedule requirements of the solicitation. Any capability that currently doesn’t exist must be addressed within the narrative by how the capability will be put in place in time to meet the delivery schedule requirements of the solicitation.

3.4.3.7 The Offeror shall ensure the IMS separately defines all engineering design tasks leading to a configuration that can transition to production. These design tasks shall also clearly demonstrate associated time and tasks allocated for multiple design revisions to address any gaps in meeting goals. These design revisions tasks shall be allocated to subsystem level tasks and be explained in the narrative on why they were anticipated to require the amount of resources and iterations demonstrated in the IMS.

3.4.3.8 The Offeror’s IMS shall clearly communicate when design prototypes are available for Government evaluation. The design principles related to Block capabilities shall be used and clearly demonstrated in the IMS.

The Offeror’s usage of scrums and sprints shall also be clearly captured in the IMS, including the process to realign resources.

3.4.3.9 The IMS shall be submitted in printed form and in a Microsoft Office Project 2013 file; and does not count toward the page limit. The Government will evaluate exclusively on the contents of the printed IMS submission.

3.4.4 Volume IV, Cost/Price (Evaluation Factor 4)

3.4.4.1 The Government intends to issue an OTA for the entire period of performance identified in the SOW, which will consist of cost plus fixed fee pricing for INC 1 tasks (tasks 1-6). and a ROM for Increment 3 (INC3) tasks (tasks 7 through 8). Tasks 7-8 will not be included as part of the OTA initial award, but may be awarded sometime thereafter. ROM pricing for INC3 tasks is subject to negotiation after receipt of a formal proposal, which will be sought and evaluated by ACC-NJ after the OTA’s period of performance has begun. Pricing for all

Increments will be set as cost plus fixed fee amounts. The period of performance for the entire INC1 scope is 60 months, however is dependent on the OTA awardee’s INC1 performance and availability of Government resources.

3.4.4.2 Offerors shall submit the Volume IV – Cost/Price Factor in accordance with the instructions specified herein and summarized in Table 2. The Volume must include a completed copy of Attachment 6 - Price Matrix in

Microsoft Excel format. The Price Matrix is arranged such that the rows for completion align with a task/milestone identified in the SOW. Each cell that requires the Offeror’s input has been highlighted in blue.

Proposed pricing for this acquisition shall be stated in U.S. dollars, limited to two decimal places (rounded to the nearest cent). The Offeror shall not add other information or make any changes to the Government formatted formulas within the Price Matrix. If an Offeror fails to propose prices for all required tasks/milestones, or fails to provide an adequate proposal, the Government may reject the offer. The total costs by Task reflected in the Price

Matrix must be consistent with the supporting Cost Proposal and the Cost Volume Narrative. Should any variance exist, the pricing in the Price Matrix will prevail.

3.4.4.3 Each Offeror’s proposal, including any proposed Cost Share, will be subject to a cost realism analysis.

The supporting cost proposal shall be sufficiently detailed and provide adequate documentation to enable the

Government to evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed costs. The cost proposal shall include, at a minimum, the information below.

The Cost Proposal shall be detailed by Element of Cost and broken out by Fiscal Year and by Task. There should be a clear correlation between the Price Matrix and the Cost Proposal. The Cost Proposal shall be in Microsoft

Excel with formulas intact. The Cost Proposal will be evaluated for cost realism, to ensure the proposed costs are realistic for the effort to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. The Cost Proposal and all associated files should provide sufficient detail to support the prices contained in the Price Matrix. The Cost Volume Narrative section must also give substantiation and a written explanation of the proposed costs. Breakdowns should be as accurate and specific as possible.

Ensure that any figures presented in this narrative are consistent with the figures in the Cost Proposal spreadsheet and in the Price Matrix.

If the Offeror (or any of its subcontractors) fail to support any portion of the elements of their proposal, as detailed below, the Government reserves the right to adjust the costs to the higher of the proposed amount or readily available data in assessing the realism of the costs proposed.

The Cost Volume Narrative must include, at a minimum, sufficient details to support the costs proposed in the

Cost Proposal, for the following categories:

3.4.4.3.1 Proposal Validity Date (Reference Section 3.1.6 for validity date requirement)

The Offeror shall identify the proposal’s validity date.

3.4.4.3.2 Direct Labor: The Offeror shall identify the labor category for all proposed personnel, including hourly rate…