HMIF Tethered UAS RFWP_Revision 1.pdf

Request for White Papers (RFWP)

Human-Machine Integrated Formations

Tethered-UAS Requirement

Issued by:

The Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) 3307 Wells Road

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Request Issue Date: 18 Mar. 2024

Revision 1 Issue Date: 5 April 2024

Submission Deadline: 22 April 2024

RFWP/CSOW H-MIF TeUAS

Table of Contents

1. Introduction/Background

2. Project Description

3. Government Objectives and Approach

3.1 Key Features

3.2 Scope

3.3 Preliminary Design

3.4 Design Refinement

3.5 Operational Prototype Production

3.6 Test and Demonstrations

3.7 Data Deliverables

3.8 Environmental and Safety

3.9 GFP/GFE/GFI (Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government Furnished Information)

3.10 Period of Performance (POP)/Delivery Date and Exit TRL

4.0 Procedures

5.0 Non-Government Personnel

6.0 Points of Contact

7.0 Response Dates

8.0 Contract Structure & Funding Availability

8.1 Funding

8.2 Instrument Type

8.3 Project Award Value

9.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

9.1 White Papers & CSOW

9.2 Format of RFWP Submittals

9.3 Content of WP Cover Sheet

9.4 WP Approach & CSOW/ROM Content

9.5 Timeliness of RFWP Submissions

9.6 Solution Presentation

10.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

10.1 Technical Content

10.2 Cost Proposal Content

10.3 Submission of Cost proposal

11.0 Evaluation Information

11.1 White Paper & CSOW Evaluation Criteria

11.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

11.3 Offeror Exchanges

12.0 Award Information

13.0 Other Information

13.1 Follow-On Production Work

13.2 Security & Anti-Terrorism Operations Security (AT-OPSEC)

1. Introduction/Background

The U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) is issuing this Request for White Papers (RFWPs) with the intent of awarding an Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype (pOTA) in accordance with (IAW) 10 U.S.C. § 4022. The RCCTO would like to invite interested entities to provide white paper technical inputs, suggestions, solutions, prototypes, or concept descriptions, to portions or all of the requirements outlined herein. The Army has designated a RCCTO and Army Futures Command (AFC) team to find and prototype integrated solutions for robotics in order to develop and manage a Human-Machine Integrated Formation (H- MIF) architecture that will guide emerging Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS) capabilities. This team will conduct prototypes, tests, and evaluations using soldier touch points that will enable valuable warfighter feedback with the systems to enable lessons learned and drive system improvements.

The RCCTO invites interested entities to review the embedded statement of objectives (SOO) in Section 3 below and provide products/solutions that could meet or exceed these objectives for a H- MIF Tethered Uncrewed Aerial System (TeUAS). The RCCTO, in coordination with Army Futures Command (AFC), plans to advance RAS technologies by delivering operational TeUAS prototypes for a H-MIF. The RCCTO and AFC are working together to transition mature science and technology elements and leverage existing RAS systems and assets currently in development to integrate and demonstrate operational prototype payloads in platoon-level armor (heavy) and infantry (light) formations. One payload for these formations, both armor and infantry, is a TeUAS solution/capability that will be integrated into robotic platforms as part of the overarching H-MIF deliverable.

Problem Statement: When operating within an enemy’s Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) bubble, the ability for conventional aerial assets to identify targets may be impaired. In conditions when high-altitude and satellite support cannot provide sufficient intelligence, the lack of aerial assets leaves ground units vulnerable to the line-of-sight limitations caused by terrain, vegetation, and structures. To overcome this capability gap, the Army has identified the need for small uncrewed aerial systems operating in a H-MIF TeUAS configuration to extend line of sight for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) as well as extending communications ranges.

Such systems must offer reduced signature, enhanced concealment and extended endurance.

The Offeror shall include whether it’s company currently has a Facilities Clearance Level (FCL) of at least SECRET and SIPRNet. If the Offeror does not currently possess an FCL of SECRET and SIPRNet, the Offeror shall describe their progress and plan to obtain an FCL of SECRET and SIPRNet. A detailed timeline of the progress and plan is preferred but not required for this CUI effort. The RCCTO WILL NOT SPONSOR an offeror for an FCL of SECRET and/or SIPRNet for this effort.

The RCCTO cautions Offerors that this RFWP will be used first to inform current and future requirements and might not be used to award any prototype projects. However, responses and evaluations may be shared with similar DoD agencies who may pursue this technology and the RCCTO may utilize this RFWP to assist with the formation of contracts in conjunction with or on behalf of those other DoD agencies.

2. Project Description

This H-MIF TeUAS effort will build on the work and demonstrations of prior TeUAS efforts conducted by both the U.S Army’s RCCTO and Development Command (DEVCOM), Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC). This effort will result in elevated ISR and retransmission assets that can be operated remotely at advantaged heights. Implementation of the H-MIF TeUAS technology must be capable of enduring operation without impacting the speed and tempo of the host vehicle/unit’s operations.

White Papers (WPs), a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), and a Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW) are sought to satisfy the U.S. Army RCCTO’s requirements to develop and deliver a quantity of eighteen (18) systems. The desired characteristics, features, and objectives of the TeUAS are as follows in Section 3.0.

3. Government Objectives and Approach

The solutions are envisioned to be embodied as a TeUAS capable of data, power and physical integration with manned and/or autonomous vehicles designed to enhance existing capability without limitation to operational envelopes. TeUAS solutions may carry 1) one or more payload packages, 2) an enclosed, secure base-station which interfaces with the host vehicle and provides protection for the TeUAS while not deployed, and 3) a software remote control solution which allows users to control the TeUAS from an appropriate computer interface connected to the same network as the base station. H-MIF TeUAS solutions will adopt a modular open systems approach (MOSA) in their embodiments. Solutions will include a mechanism to support modular payloads carried onboard the TeUAS. Payloads—including but not limited to a stabilized gimbal, daylight cameras, infrared cameras, laser pointers, laser designators, elevated antennas, and radio retransmission packages—will be able to be swapped out with minimal effort using a common rail interface design. Providers will include Government Purpose Data Rights documentation of all mechanical, electrical and data interfaces necessary to integrate a payload package with the system.

Control software will also be modular – capable of being installed and run on the compute environment present within the vehicle or within the robotic controller for the ground vehicle should it be a robotic platform. Additionally, all control software will also be delivered with unlimited government purpose rights.

The physical tether component of the TeUAS will provide continuous, high capacity/high bitrate data and power interface between the TeUAS and the base station. Through shielding or other means, the tether shall not in itself be a significant RF radiator or be susceptible to RF interference.

The base station will mechanically interface with the host vehicle and provide a robust enclosure that houses and protects the TeUAS while the host vehicle is in transit to/from the TeUAS launch/recovery point. The base station, minimally larger than the actual UAS in length/width, will draw power from the host vehicle and provide power to the TeUAS. The controller/control software will provide a means for an operator to control functions of the TeUAS and base station, including a means to interface with payloads, from the inside of a manned vehicle carrying the TeUAS or from the same mounted/dismounted controller as the ground vehicle is operating from should it be robotic. Optimally, this will be integrated with the host vehicle systems, making use of compute, display and H-MIF infrastructure already on the host. The control software will provide a messaging interface for communicating data to/from existing mission command systems remotely.

3.1 Key Features

This effort will focus primarily on the development of a deployable and sustainable operational prototype that implements the capabilities identified herein. The entire system of systems (base, tether, UAV, payloads, etc.) shall provide whatever environmental protection is needed by the TeUAS in order for the TeUAS to survive the nominal environment of the host platform that the base station is mounted upon in order to meet capability requirements and integrate into existing Army autonomous and/or manned vehicles. The modular components of the systems are as follows:

1) TeUAS Platform

a. Platform will have a minimum payload capacity of 5 lbs., as a Threshold (T), and will include an interface compatible with a range of payloads. Payload capacity greater than 5 lbs., are desirable as Objective (O) requirements.

b. Control and power links in this interface will follow open standards to allow for a wide range of payloads and decrease the development time of future payloads connected by a common rail connection configuration that enables rapid changeout of TeUAS payloads.

c. The TeUAS platform must be able to operate in a GPS denied environment.

d. The TeUAS must be durable and protected to withstand diverse environmental conditions of weather and rough terrain following known standards, e.g. ATPD 2404C.

e. Any lights on the craft need to be able to be turned on/off via a maintenance controller or remotely, at a minimum be able to be covered.

2) Tether

a. The tether will carry power, control and payload data, and RF (dedicated RF over fiber and/or data over fiber to meet low signature goals) between the base station and the TeUAS with consideration for how an RF system would interface with the payload adapter. The type of tether, e.g. fiber optic, is an objective where the data over tether (regardless of tether type) is a threshold.

b. Because the tether will interface with vehicles at a range of angles, the motion envelope of the tether will be considered with respect to each vehicle type during the integration design process. Regardless of the tether type, 100 mbps is the threshold and 1000 mbps is an objective WRT bandwidth requirements.

c. RF emissions and susceptibility from the tether should be minimized.

d. The tether should allow operations up to minimum of 200 feet (T). 300 feet is (O).

3) Base Station

a. The base station must be able to integrate with identified host vehicles. In order to achieve multi-vehicle compatibility, the physical vehicle interface of base station may vary; however, a common unit is preferred for launching and protecting the TeUAS while in transit.

b. The base station must:

i. Connect to existing vehicle power and data busses via configurable networking.

ii. Must interface with existing vehicle connections, i.e. interoperability profile

(IOP) as defined by platform owner.

iii. Meet environmental and EMI standards to include rough terrain.

c. The base station must allow under-armor/remote launch, i.e. without direct human interaction, and recovery of the TeUAS.

d. The base station must include provisions for expandable compute resources

(networked and/or organic) capable of interacting with the sensor data generated by the TeUAS payloads to include an interface for configuring Ethernet interface parameters to the intra-vehicle network for use by system integrators beyond the initial development vendors.

e. Base station should include ability to interface with ground vehicle mounted tactical radios to permit an elevated antenna on the TeUAS with military grade connections, cabling and developer breakouts.

4) Controller

a. Controller must include a configuration that is a software application that can run on a stand-alone tablet computer connecting (wired) directly to the Base Station for general maintenance and debugging.

b. In addition to operating as a standalone unit, control software must also be modular so that that can be integrated with existing host compute and display systems and or other robotic control systems such as WMI following a provided ICD.

5) Payloads

a. Payloads for the TeUAS must be modular and able to be operated using the same control software in the controller. They must use the same physical/data/power interface on the TeUAS. In order to support a wide range of CONOPS, modular payloads can be configured to fill the following roles:

i. ISR (EO/IR)- standard payload

ii. Laser Range Finder – integrated with standard payload when present.

iii. Target identification/recognition/localization – integrated with standard payload when present.

iv. Modular connections/interfaces for robotic control radios, and/or antennas.

b. When relevant, payloads must enable AI/ML to assist in detection, active target recognition (ATR) and tracking. Software for payloads should run on an edge processor integrated with the base station (i.e., should allow processing at the base of the tether and not require processing on the elevated platform itself).

c. Radios required for SIGINT, mesh radio, backhaul, etc. should be integrated with the base station – using the TeUAS as the location for an elevated antenna.

3.2 Scope

Develop a H-MIF TeUAS Operational Prototype with the projected program phases identified below to achieve the components of capability identified above. TeUAS contractors are encouraged to submit alternative phases that will help to streamline and expedite overall program schedule and costs.

3.3 Preliminary Design

Selected offeror(s) will develop an initial design for TeUAS and will present the design as part of a preliminary design review (PDR). The PDR will be accompanied by a Demonstration 1 event in which the initial design is made available for test and review. The preliminary design is anticipated to be approximately Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or higher, and will demonstrate the capability for continued efforts to meet all requirements of the program. The PDR will represent the first gating activity for continued efforts.

Tasks in this period include:

• Kickoff Meeting

• Selection Event 1: Flyoff Event

• Preliminary Design Review

• Demonstration 1 (TRL 5 on relevant platform(s) in relevant environments)

Deliverables for this period include:

• Kickoff meeting slides

• PDR design documentation and report

• Demonstration 1 report

3.4 Design Refinement

The selected offeror(s) will refine the H-MIF TeUAS design during this period. Demonstration 2 will be a refined TeUAS system design at approximately TRL 7 (T) (or higher (O)) based on pre-defined TRL definitions for this specific payload effort. At least one modular payload shall be demonstrated. Further refinement will mature the design for a critical design review (CDR) and accompanying Demonstration 3 event, where the TeUAS system will be fully integrated with the host vehicle platform, at approximately TRL 8 (T) or higher (O). Two modular payloads with different operational functions will be demonstrated. The CDR will represent the second gating activity for continued efforts.

Tasks in this period include:

• Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP)

• Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)

• Demonstration 2 (TRL 7+)

• Critical Design Review

• Demonstration 3 (TRL 8+)

Deliverable for this period include:

• Demonstration 2 report

• CDR design documentation and report

• Demonstration 3 report

• One or more prototype TeUAS systems for government evaluation o Two payload packages of different operational function

3.5 Operational Prototype Production

During the final phase of the program, the offeror(s) will finalize the design, including documentation of all interfaces, and will produce operational prototypes. The design will be presented in an operational readiness review (ORR). The ORR will be accompanied by demonstration(s), in which a set of first-article systems will be demonstrated to be fully operational in “field” conditions. Each first-article UAS will include at least one modular payload package. It is anticipated that the ORR will coincide with other Army exercises. This phase will conclude with delivery of operational prototype systems.

Tasks in this period include:

• Operational Readiness Review

• Demonstration 4 (TRL 9)

Deliverables for this period include:

• ORR design documentation and report o Interface Control Documents (ICDs) o Technical Data Package (TDP)

• Demonstration 4 report

• Operational prototype systems – QTY 18

3.6 Test and Demonstrations

Interim test events are anticipated throughout the development process, with advancement of the system TRL evident at each demonstration.

Notional TRL for demonstrations is as follows:

• Demonstration 1: TRL 6

• Demonstration 2: TRL 7

• Demonstration 3: TRL 8

• Demonstration 4: TRL 9

Demonstrations will be conducted at locations identified by the government and are anticipated to include relevant vehicle platforms and end-users.

3.7 Data Deliverables

The Contractor shall be required to deliver the following Data Item Descriptions (DIDs), at a minimum. Contractor is encouraged to add other DIDs that support the proposed solution during the proposed Period of Performance:

1. Kick-Off Meeting/System Requirements Review

2. Monthly Status Reports (MSRs)

3. Test Plans for Performance Validation, both laboratory and field tests

4. Test Reports for Performance Validation, both laboratory and field tests

5. Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

6. Critical Design Review (CDR)

7. Operational Readiness Review (ORR)

8. Technical Exchange Meetings & Reports

9. Demonstration and/or Soldier Touch Point (STP) Reports following each event

10. Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP)/Full Rate Production (FRP) Plans

11. Interface Control Documents (ICD)

12. Technical Data Package (TDP)

13. Software Documentation

14. Authority to Operate (ATO) Artifacts (for any network applications)

15. Safety Assessment Report (SAR)

16. System Training Package/User Training Manuals, both hardware & software

17. Software Requirements Specification (SRS)

18. Final Closeout Review Meeting & Report

3.8 Environmental and Safety

The components of the solution developed under this SOO shall be of safe design and not interfere with vehicle operations. It is anticipated that individual vehicle PMs will approve integration into their relevant vehicles. It is anticipated that Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) will conduct a system safety review.

3.9 GFP/GFE/GFI (Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government Furnished Information) GFE may include access to Army remotely controlled autonomous and/or manned vehicles for testing during system development and at demonstration events.

3.10 Period of Performance (POP)/Delivery Date and Exit TRL

Timeline for engineering efforts is anticipated to be approximately 27 months from contract award.

Delivery of materiel is desired within 6 months of contract award. Specifics of schedule may vary with offeror proposal. Expected TRL at program completion will be TRL 9 or higher.

4.0 Procedures

This RFWP consists of the submission of a White Paper (WP) and CSOW, and if selected, a final technical submission and cost proposal will be requested. This RFWP is considered a competitive process. Key milestones are listed in Table 1 and described in more detail below.

Table 1 RFWP Release Date 18 Mar. 2024 RFWP Questions Cut-off Date 27 Mar. 2024 WP/CSOW Due Date 22 Apr. 2024

The TeUAS SOO in Section 3 above supports the creation of the WP technical content, a draft CSOW, and the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costing. Offerors shall submit a WP in accordance with the format and content instructions in Section 9.0 and contractor best practice WP format; the CSOW submittal will follow the form/format of the H-MIF SOW template. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code information, or related Offeror errors, will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or submissions. Note: If an Offeror wishes to propose multiple solutions, they must propose those approaches in separate WPs.

Upon receipt of WPs and CSOW, the Government will evaluate submitted WPs/CSOW IAW the specified WP/CSOW Evaluation Criteria, Section 11.0, to determine which submissions represent the most advantageous solution to the Government. At that time, the Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation from any Offeror that made a submission, or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous WP solution. Offerors that made a submission that are not selected for award may not be notified until after award.

Except in situations such as those noted in below, the Government will notify the selected Offeror that submitted the WP/CSOW deemed to represent the most advantageous solution to provide a cost proposal and a final technical submittal against a proposed Government Statement of Work

(GSOW) to the Government. Upon receipt of the cost and final technical submittal, the Government may collaborate with the Offeror to finalize the SOW to ensure mutual agreement to the technical deliverables. Upon receipt of the cost proposal, the Government will evaluate the cost proposal IAW the specified Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Section 11.0. If the cost proposal is deemed advantageous to the Government, the GSOW is mutually agreeable, and a consensus on the terms of the agreement are agreed to, the Offeror will be awarded the pOTA, subject to the availability of funding.

If the evaluated cost proposal is not found to be acceptable or the parties cannot successfully reach a consensus on the GSOW or the terms of the agreement, as determined at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror with the next best WP/CSOW solution based on the original WP/CSOW evaluation. Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best WP/CSOW solution, no further engagements with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after the agreement has been awarded. The process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a pOTA is awarded. All documents necessary for the review and evaluation of TeUAS submittals shall be provided as described in this

RFWP.

5.0 Non-Government Personnel

Offerors are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-Government advisors in the review and evaluation of WPs. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition. The non-Government advisors will be required to submit to the Government a Non-Disclosure Agreement reflecting the effort(s) that they will be supporting. The Offeror’s submission of a WP under this RFWP indicates concurrence with the use of non- Government advisors.

1. Apex Sourcing, LLC, Glen Lakes, FL 34613, (443) 981-9557, (POC gregory.l.davies.ctr@army.mil forMr. Gregory Davies)

2. Radiance Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, AL (256) 929-7568, (POC robert.sinquefield@radiancetech.com for Mr. Dan Kehr)

3. Blue Sky Innovators, Reston, VA (703) 719-8657, (POC matt.hostutler@Blueskyinnovators.com for Mr. Brad Sams)

4. Exponent, Inc, Phoenix, AZ (623) 582-6949) (POC john.d.pye5.ctr@army.mil for Dr. Dan Kingsley and Mr. Ruben Gameros Ramos)

5. SGS Innovations, LLC, Waterford, VA 20197 (703) 581-8715 (POC mark.sullivan@sgs-innovations.com for Mr. Mark Sullivan)

In accomplishing their duties related to the RFWP evaluation, the aforementioned firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors' submittals. Therefore, these firms may execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will: (1) protect the Offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary; and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. To expedite the evaluation process, each Offeror must contact the above company to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each Offeror shall submit copies of the agreement with their submittal, if applicable.

mailto:gregory.l.davies.ctr@army.mil mailto:robert.sinquefield@radiancetech.com mailto:matt.hostutler@Blueskyinnovators.com mailto:mark.sullivan@sgs-innovations.com mailto:mark.sullivan@sgs-innovations.com

6.0 Points of Contact

All questions regarding RFWP submissions must be emailed to ALL of the following personnel:

1. Simone Brightmon, simone.l.brightmon.civ@army.mil

2. Tessa Jones, tessa.a.jones.civ@army.mil

3. Jolynda Ivy, jolynda.v.ivy.civ@army.mil

7.0 Response Dates

All questions regarding this RFWP shall be submitted via email no later than 1600 EST on 27 March 2024 to all points of contact listed in Section 6.0. It is preferred that only one set of questions be submitted by each Offeror instead of submitting multiple sets of questions. Questions received by the Government after 1600 EST on 27 March 2024 may not be answered prior to the closing date/time for receipt of white paper submissions. Questions submitted by any method other than email will not be accepted or answered. The Government will post responses to SAM.gov for all questions received and any amendments issued as a result of submitted questions.

All RFWP submittals must be received no later than 1600 EST on 22 April 2024 by all the POCs listed in Section 6.0. It is the responsibility of the submitting party to confirm receipt of submissions.

The Government will provide additional information and instructions, including submission dates and clarifications, in a request for a final proposal submission and cost proposal to the selected Offeror(s).

8.0 Contract Structure & Funding Availability

8.1 Funding

The Government reserves the right to consider all, some, or none of the WPs or cost proposals received in response to this RFWP for selection of award. The Government reserves the right to cancel this RFWP at any time for any reason or for no reason. Issuance of this RFWP does not commit the Government to pay for any preparation costs incurred by the contractor in compiling a response to any aspect of this RFWP and any such costs are not allowable or allocable to any USG contract or agreement. All potential Offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice, and any award is subject to the availability of funding.

8.2 Instrument Type

The preferred instrument type is a pOTA awarded as a firm-fixed price contract. This contract type allows for fixed payable milestones based on the agreed-upon milestone schedule. Funding arrangements are at the discretion of the Government.

8.3 Project Award Value

Offerors should provide ROMs & cost proposals that are commensurate with the proposed level of effort to complete the proposed approach and meet the requirements of the SOO as outlined herein.

mailto:joshua.e.flinn.civ@army.mil mailto:brian.j.burton.mil@army.mil mailto:jolynda.v.ivy.civ@army.mil

9.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

9.1 White Papers & CSOW

Only UNCLASSIFIED submittals will be accepted. The Government’s decision to invite an Offeror to submit a final proposal and cost proposal will be based upon the evaluation results of the RFWP submissions.

In the event of a possible or actual compromise of classified information in your submission, immediately and within no more than 24 hours, bring this to the attention of the POCs in Sections 6.0.

9.2 Format of RFWP Submittals

Offerors shall submit the WP IAW the following:

1. Number of Pages: The WP is limited to ten (10) pages. There is no maximum page for the CSOW or the ROM. The WP cover sheet is not included in the page limit. Pages submitted in excess of the WP page limit will not be read or evaluated.

2. Number of Copies & Format: One (1) electronic copy of the WP, CSOW, ROM, and cover sheet.

3. Text & Font Format: Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8½ x 11-inch paper, with a minimum of one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Font size shall be of minimum 12-point font. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text no less than 9-point font that is easily readable.

4. Security: Do not lock or encrypt any files uploaded as part of your white paper submission. Any locked or encrypted files will not be read or evaluated.

5. Use of legible diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is encouraged.

6. All RFWP submittals shall be UNCLASSIFIED. Submittals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following sentences on the cover page:

“This WHITE PAPER includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government, except to non-Government personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this submission. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Offeror as a result of -- or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent agreed upon by both parties in the resulting agreement. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows:

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

7. Questions regarding the objectives or preparation of the WP should be addressed to the POC’s listed in Section 6.0.

9.3 Content of WP Cover Sheet

The Offeror’s WP must include the following:

1. Cover Sheet

Offerors shall provide the following information on the cover sheet:

a. Organization Information: name, mailing address, technical POC, phone number, e-mail address, CAGE code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN)

b. Business POC, phone number, and e-mail address

c. Self-Certification of Offeror: (select all that apply)

(1) Small business

(2) Large business

(3) Academic institution

(4) Non-traditional defense contractor (see definition below)

(5) Other

Non-traditional defense contractor (NDC) is defined in 10 U.S.C. § 3014 as 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.

9.4 WP Approach & CSOW/ROM Content

Ensure your submittals adequately describes the proposed approach, capabilities and resulting contributions. The WP shall include the following sections in the order given below, as applicable:

1. Technical Approach: Describe how the proposed technical approach to accomplish the proposed task is feasible, achievable, and complete, meeting or exceeding Government objectives. The technical approach, in addition to the list below, should address the approach to develop the TeUAS. Address the following:

a. Project approach to meeting objectives and scope. Present approach to meet the technical characteristics and objectives as identified in the SOO. The RCCTO will evaluate the entire Technical Approach holistically, considering these desired characteristics.

b. Proposed capabilities of the Offeror’s system.

c. Inclusion of Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA) into the design process and solution.

d. Overview of tasks and methods planned to accomplish the technical approach and the TeUAS to be delivered as part of the base agreement that supports the contract PoP.

e. Identify particular approaches the Offeror will take to ensure successful completion within the clear schedule constraints (e.g., opportunities to accelerate schedule).

f. Present scalability of prototype production methods, commercial items, and resources in order to meet the Government’s schedule.

g. Identify and assert any restrictions on the Government's use, release, or disclosure of technical data or computer software pertaining to its proposal submission. If the offeror has no restrictions for a particular section, then it shall state “none.” All assertions (including entries of “none”) shall be signed by an authorized representative of the offeror. If all assertions are contained on one page, one signature is sufficient. If the assertions are separated, each assertion shall be signed (separately) as required. The offeror's assertions, including the assertions of its subcontractors or suppliers or potential subcontractors or suppliers, shall be submitted in the required format, dated, and signed by an official authorized to contractually obligate the offeror. The offeror shall provide a detailed discussion of the degree to which asserted data rights restrictions, as well as any proposed option(s) for additional data rights, affect the proposed technical solutions and the Government’s ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose the resulting technical data and computer software for Government purposes as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(12) and DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(11). Note:

The data rights assertions are not subject to the page limit specified for this part of the proposal.

2. Qualifications and Experience

a. Limited to the past five (5) years, related prior or current work, identify Offeror’s roles and responsibilities:

(1) Offeror’s projects related to the development and demonstration of TeUAS in a robotic environment or in similar settings, including Small Business

Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contracts and Independent Research & Development (IR&D).

(2) Offeror’s projects related to the integration of TeUAS onto Army tactical and combat vehicles, or other DOD applications, and testing of those systems, including SBIR/STTR contracts and IR&D projects.

b. Identify team member(s) role assignments and each team member's qualifications and experiences in comparison to the respective SOO performance requirement(s) the team members are proposed to perform.

If the offeror proposes the use of one or more NDCs, the following information is required for each participating NDC:

(1) Legal Name and CAGE code;

(2) Explanation of how proposed NDC meets 10 U.S.C. § 3014 definition;

(3) Contribution to the effort, based on at least one of the following factors:

• Supplying new key technology or products;

• Causing a material reduction in the cost or schedule; and/or

• Creating a material increase in performance

(4) Anticipated dollar value of the proposed NDC’s contribution

c. Identify key technical and management personnel proposed to execute the program.

d. Facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed effort and how they meet or exceed required tolerances and precisions. Provide evidence of quality control program processes (example: ISO 9001 certification), indicate the number and level of clean rooms available and indicate what manufacturing processes will be included in the design.

Content for the CSOW: Offerors are to draft a CSOW that clearly outlines the work and tasks that will be required to deliver a complete TeUAS. The objectives and key features as identified Section 3 should be considered and met or exceeded in the CSOW.

The CSOW should unambiguously outline the contractor’s proposed effort. The attached CSOW format should be adhered to and include all tasks, milestones, H/W & S/W deliverables, as well as Data Item Deliverables (DIDs). The CSOW must align with the SOO. The requirements and objectives in the TeUAS SOO will be used by offerors to develop, draft, and submit a CSOW that clearly outlines the contractor’s proposed effort. The CSOW submittal shall detail and structure a sound technically viable program, which is innovative, affordable, designed to be executable, and able to satisfy (meet or exceed) Government objectives. The CSOW must clearly align with the SOO and must be submitted in the form/format of the attached H-MIF SOW Template to the maximum extent possible.

ROM Costs: Describe the estimated costs for the proposed technical approach. Provide a ROM cost by WBS element (not price), and any assumptions pertaining to cost and suggested fee. If the ROM cost includes a Management Reserve to address risk, segregate Management Reserve in the ROM cost. For ROM development, the Offeror should provide a breakout of the estimated costs associated with the tasks and methods planned to achieve the proposed technical approach. Segregate labor costs, labor hours, materials, overhead costs, and subcontractor costs. The Offeror should describe general methods (e.g. expert judgment, analogous estimating, actual costs/prior Pos, and parametric estimating) used to define estimated costs for the technical approach.

Identify long lead items in terms of ROM costs and required dates to purchase or begin fabrication in order to deliver according to contract PoP. Provide assumptions of any Government Furnished Information, Software or Material. If applicable, include any suggested cost share distribution or creative costing approaches to maximize successful completion within the constrained schedule.

Use the following WBS categories for ROM Cost (use only applicable categories)

1.01 Development Engineering

1.01.01 Development Engineering Hardware

1.01.02 Development Engineering Software

1.02 Producibility Engineering and Planning (PEP)

1.03 Development Tooling

1.04 Prototype Manufacturing

1.05 Systems Engineering/Program Management

1.06 Systems Test and Evaluation (ST&E)

1.06.01 Development Test & Evaluation

1.06.02 Operational Test & Evaluation

1.06.03 Mock-Ups/System Integration Lab

1.06.04 Test and Evaluation Support

1.06.05 Test Facilities

1.06.06 Other Testing

1.07 Training

1.08 Data

1.09 Support Equipment

1.09.01 Peculiar Support Equipment

1.09.02 Common Support Equipment

1.10 Other RDT&E

1.11 Management Reserve

1.12 H-MIF System Integration

9.5 Timeliness of RFWP Submissions

Late submissions will not be accepted, and any other failure to comply with RFWP submission instructions (content, approach, etc.) may cause your submission to not be evaluated by the Government.

9.6 Solution Presentation

Prior to invitation to submit cost proposals, the Government may elect to request additional information or a solution presentation, either in person or virtually, from all Offerors or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous WP solution.

10.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

When invited to do so by the Government, an Offeror may develop and submit a follow-on formal proposal. A formal proposal is defined as a cost proposal against an accompanying GSOW. A notification will be sent to the Offeror(s) that submitted package that represents the most advantageous solution, requesting the Offeror(s) to submit a final proposals and cost volume. Only UNCLASSIFIED proposals will be accepted.

10.1 Technical Content

1. Shall utilize the Government’s SOW, which will have evolved from the offeror’s original

CSOW, to develop a refined technical solution based on the original submittals. It is expected that dialog between the Government and the Offeror will have predated the request for the final proposal.

2. Any red-line adjustments to the GSOW that the offeror makes in its final submission will need to be adjudicated and may delay or negate the award process. However, the goal is to establish a mutually agreeable GSOW that can be placed on contract.

3. Shall identify the primary performer and the performer’s certification status (non-traditional/traditional defense contractor) for each task.

4. Shall address and include all applicable deliverables.

10.2 Cost Proposal Content

1. Proposed detailed schedule;

2. Proposed Milestone Payment Schedule;

3. Data Rights, to include subcontractors and suppliers.

4. Price (broken out by cost (detailed cost elements)) and profit;

5. Subcontractor and supplier team roles, responsibilities and deliverables.

Additional proposal and proposal formatting instructions may be provided in the notification to the selected Offeror.

There is no maximum page count for the cost proposal. All pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2- by 11-inch paper with a font size not smaller than 12 point. Font sizes no smaller than 9 point may be used for figures, tables and charts. Document files must be in .rtf, .txt, Portable Document Format (.pdf, ISO 32000-1), OpenDocument (.odx, ISO/IEC 26300:2006), .doc, .docx,. xls,. or .xlsx formats. Submissions must be written in English.

The proposal must include a detailed timeline, including technical milestones and a schedule of deliverables. Payments will be made in accordance with the proposed Milestone Payment Schedule. The milestones on the Milestone Payment Schedule SHALL be based on meaningful and identifiable events and associated deliverables (monthly reports are not acceptable milestones). Payment will be made when those deliverables are accepted by the Government, and at no other time. As such, if a proposer is expecting to be paid monthly, then the proposal must include a Milestone Payment Schedule detailing monthly meaningful deliverables (e.g., incremental code drops, test results, etc.). The proposer should take this into account when planning their schedule.

For the prime and subcontractors, the proposal must include a detailed breakout of how the money will be spent and how prices and rates were determined. Direct and Indirect rates must be justified based on past commercial or Government rates, or by providing examples of equivalent rates for equivalent talent. If rates are based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) negotiated rates, the rate agreements shall be provided.

10.3 Submission of Cost proposal

Cost proposal(s) shall be submitted IAW the response dates provided in the notification to the selected Offeror(s). Failure to timely provide a complete cost proposal, to timely negotiate, or to satisfactorily agree to Government terms and cost/price goals may result in the prompt de-selection of your submittal, allowing the Government to seek another proposal.

11.0 Evaluation Information

11.1 White Paper & CSOW Evaluation Criteria

WPs and CSOWs will be evaluated using three (3) criteria. These criteria are listed below, in descending order of importance. Any failure to comply with RFWP submission instructions (content, approach, etc.) may cause your submission to not be evaluated by the Government.

1. WP/CSOW Evaluation Criteria #1: Technical Approach

a. The Government will evaluate acceptability of the Offeror's approach to accomplish the technical objectives of the SOO. To be assessed as acceptable, the response must:

(1) Present a sound understanding of the overall objectives and technologies involved as demonstrated by a feasible, executable, and comprehensive approach to satisfying the requirements of the SOO and effective approaches for identifying, eliminating, and mitigating risks.

(2) Present approach to meet or exceed the technical characteristics, objectives, and threshold requirements as outlined in the SOO. The RCCTO will evaluate the entire Technical Approach holistically, considering these required characteristics.

(3) Proposed approach of how the prototype TeUAS developed, tested, and delivered.

(4) Present task schedule, key milestones, projected timelines and proposed critical path(s) consistent with the proposed technical approach to ensure delivery of up to eighteen (18) TeUAS systems (as defined above) according to contract PoP.

(5) Ability to incorporate system hardware, software, and interface commonality through MOSA into processes and system design.

(6) Demonstrate strategic supplier relationships or plans that address, mitigate, and resolve supply chain issues within the unique directed energy industrial base.

(7) Scalability of prototype production methods and resources in order to meet the Government’s schedule.

(8) Provide the requested information above related to FCL of SECRET and SIPRNet as this effort may involve an opportunity to access information at the classification level of SECRET.

(9) The evaluation of this criteria will also consider the degree to which asserted data rights restrictions, as well as any proposed option(s) for additional data rights, affect the proposed technical solutions and the Government's ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or disclose the resulting technical data and computer software for Government purposes as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(12) and 252.227-7014(a)(11) in terms of demonstrating its ability to execute the proposed approach.

2. WP Evaluation Criteria #2: Qualifications and Experience

The Government will assess the acceptability of the Offeror's qualifications and experience for accomplishing all requirements. To be assessed as acceptable, the response must:

a. Present relevant related prior or current work experience for the development of

TeUAS designed for military application. Provide related prior or current work experience for integration of TeUAS and testing of those systems. Provide related prior or current work experience for TeUAS sustainment and conducting Soldier training and touchpoints on radar systems.

b. Present effective and qualified team member role assignments in terms of each team member's qualifications and experiences in comparison to the respective SOO performance requirement(s) the team members are proposed to perform and reflect team member qualifications and experiences that ensures comprehensive coverage of all SOO performance requirements. Identify sufficiently qualified key technical and management personnel to successfully execute the proposed technical approach and support SOO performance requirements.

c. Propose facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed effort and meet or exceed required tolerances and precisions, as well as meeting security requirements and identification of available licenses, certifications, and/or permits that are required to meet the objectives of the SOO. Provide evidence of a quality control program (example: ISO 9001 certification), indicate what manufacturing processes will be included in the design.

3. WP Evaluation Criteria #3 – ROM Cost

Whether the proposed cost is realistic and affordable for the proposed technical approach to the extent appropriate and whether the proposed cost generally reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

11.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the cost proposal and will evaluate whether the proposed cost reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

Offerors shall describe the labor mix and labor hours necessary in sufficient detail to give evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s approach and to allow evaluations to determine the realism of the offered figures to accomplish the effort. Concurrent to this evaluation, the Government will ensure that the proposed SOW accurately reflects the full breadth of the project, including properly addressing the Government SOW and specific tasks, deliverables and milestones required to successfully complete the prototype project. As needed, the Government may negotiate with the Offeror to adjust the SOW, cost/price and other terms before award.

If agreement cannot be reached with the Offeror whose proposal is initially assessed to present the most advantageous technical approach, the Government will evaluate Cost/Price and SOW for the proposal of the Offeror with the next best technical solution. Additionally, if the proposal of the Offeror whose WP is initially assessed to present the most advantageous technical approach does not clearly correlate to the initial ROM cost, the Government reserves the right to forego moving forward with that initially selected Offeror and request a proposal from the Offeror with the next most advantageous WP. If additional funding subsequently becomes available, and funding of additional awards becomes possible, the Government will evaluate Cost/Price for the proposal of the Offeror(s) with the next best technical solution(s).

11.3 Offeror Exchanges

Once the Government determines that a submittal or cost proposal represents the most advantageous solution based on all evaluation criteria identified in Section 11.1, the Government reserves the right to engage with only that Offeror to address remaining issues, either orally or in writing if necessary, and finalize an agreement with that Offeror. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror with the next best solution based on the original evaluation and to address any remaining issues with that Offeror.

Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best solution, no further engagements with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after the agreement has been awarded or the…