Multi Function Precision Radar (MFPR) RFWP_Rev2 (10Dec24) Final.pdf

Request for White Papers (RFWP)

Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System (MDACS) Prototype Development

Multifunction Precision Radar (MFPR) Block 2

Rev 2

Issued by:

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

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Request Issue Date: November 18, 2024

Amendment 2 Date: December 10, 2024

Submission Deadline: January 15, 2025 - 2:00 PM Eastern Time

RCCTO RFWP Multifunction Precision Radar Block 2 (Rev 2)

Table of Contents

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Procedures

1.4 Non-Government Personnel

1.5 Points of Contact

1.6 Response Dates

1.7 Industry Day

2.0 Award Information

2.1 Funding

2.2 Instrument Type

2.3 Project Award Value

2.4 Period of Performance

3.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 White Papers

3.2 Format of White Papers

3.3 Content of WPs

3.4 WP Approach

3.5 Submission of WPs

3.6 Solution Presentation

4.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

4.1 PWS Content

4.2 Cost Proposal Content

4.3 Submission of Cost proposal

5.0 Evaluation Information

5.1 White Paper Evaluation Criteria

5.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

5.3 Offeror Exchanges

6.0 Award Information

7.0 Other Information

7.1 Follow-On Production Work

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

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) is issuing a Request for White Papers (RFWPs) with the intent of awarding one (1) or more Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype (OTAP) in accordance with (IAW) 10 U.S.C. § 4022. Only U.S.

companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware are eligible to submit a white paper.

1.2 Project Description

The Multi-Function Precision Radar (MFPR) is a critical element of the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System (MDACS). The MDACS mission is to defend Joint Force fixed and semi-fixed locations against attack by a broad spectrum of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs), Cruise Missiles (CMs), Fixed Wing (FW), Rotary Wing (RW), and other advanced air and missile threats and to complement existing air and missile defenses by operating in integrated or stand-along operational scenarios. MDACS subsystems are the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon (MDAC), MFPR, Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP), and Multi-Domina Battle Manager (MDBM).

White papers are sought to satisfy the U.S. Army RCCTO’s requirements to prototype MFPRs in support of the MDACS mission. This effort will provide up to four (4) complete MFPRs integrated onto a Government furnished property (GFP) wheeled-vehicle platform no later than 4QFY27. The MFPR will participate in live range testing against operationally relevant targets.

1.3 Procedures

This RFWP consists of the submission of a White Paper (WP), Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) and demonstrated performance data. If selected, a Request for Prototype Proposal (RFPP) to include a 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 November 2024 Offeror Submission of CAGE Code 25 November 2024 Release of SOO to Cleared Offerors 26 November 2024 Industry Day Registration Due 6 December 2024 RFWP Questions Cut-off Date 10 December 2024 Industry Day 12-13 December 2024 WP Due Date 15 January 2025

As stated above, only U.S. companies with the ability to process and store SECRET information and hardware are eligible to submit a WP. Interested Offerors shall submit a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and Offeror POC to the following Government Security POC:

- Jeffery Miles, jeffery.j.miles.ctr@army.mil

Upon validation of facility clearances, the Government will coordinate with the Offeror’s POC to provide the CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) Statement of Objectives (SOO) and CLASSIFIED appendix on the date indicated in Table 1. The SOO and CLASSIFIED appendix will support the creation of the WP technical content and the ROM costing. Offerors shall submit a WP in accordance with the Format of WPs and Content of WPs contained in Section 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code information, or related Vendor errors, will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or WP submissions.

Upon receipt of WPs, the Government will evaluate submitted WPs IAW the specified WP Evaluation Criteria, Section 5.1, to determine which submitted WPs 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 submitted WPs or from only the Offeror(s) that submitted the most advantageous WP solution. Offerors that submitted WPs that are not selected for award may not be notified until after award.

The Government will notify the selected Offeror that submitted a WP deemed to represent the most advantageous solution to provide a cost proposal and Performance Work Statement (PWS) to the Government. Upon receipt of the proposed PWS, the Government will collaborate with the Offeror to finalize the PWS. Upon receipt of the cost proposal, the Government will evaluate the cost proposal IAW the specified Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Section 5.2. If the cost proposal is deemed advantageous to the Government and a consensus on the terms of the agreement are agreed to, the Offeror will be awarded the OTAP.

If the evaluated cost proposal is not found to be acceptable or the parties cannot successfully reach a consensus on 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 solution based on the original WP evaluation. Once the Government has engaged the Offeror with the next best WP 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 OTAP is awarded.

All documents necessary for the review and evaluation of WPs, cost proposal submissions and updated PWS shall be provided as described in this RFWP.

1.4 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 aforementioned use of non-Government advisors.

KODA Technologies 620 Discovery Drive Building 2, Suite 100 Huntsville, AL 35806 POC: Amanda Zimmerman, Contracts Manager amanda.zimmerman@kodatech.com Work: (256) 509-2710 Cell: (256) 570-5632

Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation 5030 Bradford Drive Building 2, Suite 205 Huntsville, AL 35805 POC: Cortney Hardiman Cortney.hardiman@irtc-hq.com Work: (256) 936-4180

Modern Technology Solutions, Inc. (MTSI) 360C Quality Cir NW #310, Huntsville, AL 35806 POC: Dr. Micaiah Paddock micaiah.c.paddock.ctr@army.mil Work: (703) 545-9038

In accomplishing their duties related to the WP evaluation, the aforementioned firm may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors' WP. 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 WP, if applicable.

1.5 Points of Contact

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

1. Joshua Flinn, joshua.e.flinn.civ@army.mil

2. Barbara Cantrell, barbara.a.cantrell2.civ@army.mil

Upon validation of facility clearances, the Government will coordinate with the Offeror’s POC to provide the CUI Statement of Objectives (SOO) and CLASSIFIED appendix on the date indicated in Table 1, which will include a CLASSIFIED mailing address and CLASSIFIED email addresses for CLASSIFIED questions, as well as CLASSIFIED WP submittal.

1.6 Response Dates

Offerors must submit CAGE Code to Security POCs listed in Section 1.3 no later than 1600 EST on 25 November 2024. Failure to timely submit CAGE Code information, or related Vendor errors will not be a basis for extensions of time for questions or WP submissions. All questions regarding this RFWP shall be submitted via email no later than 1600 EST on 13 December 2024 to the points of mailto:joshua.e.flinn.civ@army.mil mailto:barbara.a.cantrell2.civ@army.mil contact listed in Section 1.5. All contacts listed in Section 1.5 must be included in the email. 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 10 December 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 all questions received and any amendments issued as a result of submitted questions.

All Unclassified WPs must be received no later than 1400 EST on 15 January 2025 by the POCs listed in Section 1.5. All contacts listed in Section 1.5 must be included in the email. It is the responsibility of the submitting party to confirm receipt of submissions. All classified submissions shall be delivered to RCCTO via SIPRNET or on a Compact Disk or DVD NLT 1600 EST on 15 January 2025 using the following procedures.

SIPRNET:

joshua.e.flinn.civ@mail.smil.mil jeffery.j.miles.ctr@mail.smil.mil

MAILING INSTRUCTIONS:

Outside envelop:

Director RCCTO ATTN: Security Office 3307 Wells Rd Redstone Arsenal AL 35898

Inside envelop:

Director RCCTO ATTN: SAAL-RCC-MDACS (Jeff Miles) 3307 Wells Rd Redstone Arsenal AL 35898

Information and dates regarding questions about, and submission of, cost proposal will be included in the notifications sent to selected Offeror(s).

1.7 Industry Day

The RCCTO will host a MFPR Industry Day Event and Potential Prime Offerors One-on-One sessions on December 12-13, 2024, in Huntsville, Alabama (Redstone Arsenal).

The purpose of the Industry Day is to provide an overview of MFPR. All costs associated with attending the Industry Day will be solely at the respondent/attendee’s expense. Participation in MFPR RFWP or any other future RCCTO transaction or procurement opportunity is not contingent upon attending this Industry Day.

mailto:joshua.e.flinn.civ@mail.smil.mil mailto:jeffery.j.miles.ctr@army.mil

When considering attendance, current or prospective RCCTO contractors and subcontractors must adhere to the guidance in Section 1.4. Attendees should coordinate with the POCs listed in Section

1.5 to determine whether it has or will have an actual or potential conflict of interest or whether it will gain an unfair competitive advantage in relation to the performance of any RCCTO contract.

Potential Offerors and subcontractors are placed on notice that this includes the furnishing of advice, information, direction, or assistance to an Offeror in support of the preparation or submission of a proposal, proposal modification, or revision in relation to any solicitation, an amendment to the same or any other communication with the Government to include discussions;

regardless of whether that advice, information, direction, or assistance originates from a proposed subcontractor or any other source.

Target Audience: Prime Offerors interested in submitting a WP.

When: December 12, 2024, 0730-1600 Central Standard Time (CST) Below is a tentative schedule for planning purposes:

0730 – 0800 Registration 0800 – 0810 Welcome & Rules of Engagement 0810 – 0815 Organizational Conflict of Interest Briefing 0815 – 0845 MFPR Overview 0845 – 0850 Contract Overview 0850 – 0900 Question and Answer Period 0900 – 0915 Break 0915 – 1130 One-on-One Sessions (20 minute individually scheduled sessions) 1130 – 1230 Lunch 1230 – 1600 Resume One-on-One Sessions

December 13, 2024, 0800 – 1600 Central Standard Time (CST)

Continue One-on-One Sessions if needed

Where: U.S. Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, 3307 Wells Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Registration Details:

Industry Day Registration Forms will be provided upon validation of facility clearances, along with the SOO and CLASSIFIED appendix. In order to attend the Industry Day Event, interested participants must complete and submit the Industry Day Registration Form via email to catherine.l.collinsworth2.mil@army.mil no later than 1600 CST, Tuesday December 6, 2024. The email subject line shall state “RSVP MFPR Industry Day Event”. Companies must provide the name and information of no more than three (3) personnel per company (inclusive of Business Units.) One-on-one sessions for up to three (3) personnel per company (inclusive of Business Units) will be available, if desired, for potential prime offerors in 20-minute increments, first come, first served in the order received.

mailto:catherine.l.collinsworth2.mil@army.mil

An email confirmation will be sent by the RCCTO verifying successful receipt of registration along with a detailed industry day agenda including the industry day schedule, maps, and directions.

Receipt of registration documents does not guarantee clearance to attend this event. Each person attending industry day must provide one (1) form of valid US government issued photo identification (ID) and sign-in to the facility upon arrival. Acceptable forms of photo ID include the following: US Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent), US passport or US passport card, US DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST), U.S. Department of Defense IDs, US State-issued Enhanced Driver’s License, Federally recognized tribal-issued photo ID, US Transportation worker identification credential (TWIC), and US Merchant Mariner Credential. Non-Common Access Card (CAC) holders will be provided base access instructions. Personal electronic devices, to include but not limited to: cameras, cell phones, smart watches/fitness trackers, photographic equipment, recording devices, wireless headphones, thumb drives, and computer drives are prohibited from being brought into the facility. Visitors are reminded that all bags and packages brought into the facilities are subject to inspection at all times by access control personnel. Attendees should arrive at the RCCTO facility at 0730 on the day of the event to ensure time for check-in and badging prior to entering the facility.

Visit Authorization Request (VAR) Processing Instructions:

As part of the pre-registration process, the RCCTO requires all industry participants have a VAR on file with the RCCTO to participate in the event and session. Any person attending Industry Day Event and One-on-one Session must, at a minimum, have a US SECRET security clearance. VARs must be sent NLT 1600 CST, Friday December 6, 2024.

VAR Information:

Visitors should submit their clearance information thru DISS (SMO Code is RCCTO9.)

Please be sure to include “RSA”: Should be included in all VAR titles intended for RCCTO Building 3307

• RCCTO Technical POC: Mischelle Rivera, Phone: 256-336-6332

If unable to access DISS please send visit requests via password protected email to:

• anthony.d.firestone.ctr@army.mil

• james.m.campbell293.ctr@army.mil

RCCTO Security phone is 256-336-6201. Call to confirm receipt.

All visitors (e.g. personnel without pin access to the front door) are required to sign-in at the guard’s desk.

VAR submissions after December 6, 2024 may result in personnel not being cleared to attend the Industry Day Event. There will be no day-of processing by the RCCTO security office.

2.0 Award Information

2.1 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. 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.

2.2 Instrument Type

The preferred instrument type is a OTAP awarded as a fixed price incentive firm (FPIF). This contract type allows for fixed payable milestones based on the agreed-upon milestone schedule.

Funding arrangements are at the discretion of the Government.

2.3 Project Award Value

Offerors should provide a ROM that is commensurate with the proposed level of effort to complete the proposed approach and meet the requirements of the SOO as outlined herein.

2.4 Period of Performance

The period of performance of the anticipated OTAP is up to 36 months after contract award.

mailto:anthony.d.firestone.ctr@army.mil mailto:james.m.campbell293.ctr@army.mil

3.0 White Paper Preparation & Submission Instructions

3.1 White Papers

Only CLASSIFIED summaries of technical approaches will be accepted. The Government anticipates submission of UNCLASSIFIED vendor qualifications and experience history, schedules and ROM costs; however, if the offeror believes CLASSIFIED data is necessary to present a vendor qualifications and experience, it is acceptable to include within the CLASSIFIED submission. This CLASSIFIED submission may not exceed the classification of collateral SECRET and must be delivered in accordance with the 32 CFR Part 2117, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). WPs shall not contain any information above SECRET or contain any restrictive markings (e.g., special access program (SAP), NATO, CNWDI, WNTEL, etc.) The CONFIDENTIAL marking is reserved as a security marking in accordance with AR 380-5 and the NISPOM and shall not be used as a marking for company proprietary information. All material submitted in response to this RFWP must be properly marked. The Government evaluation team reserves the right to request further clarification to enhance our understanding of the Offeror's submittal. The Government’s decision to invite an Offeror to submit a final prototype proposal and cost proposal will be based upon the evaluation results of the WP submission.

In the event of a possible or actual compromise of CLASSIFIED information in the submission of the Offeror’s WP, the Offeror must immediately and within no more than 24 hours, bring this to the attention of the POCs in Section 1.5.

3.2 Format of White Papers

Offerors shall submit the WP IAW the following:

1. Number of Pages: The WP is limited to 10 pages for summary of CLASSIFIED technical approach, 2 pages for CLASSIFIED summary of vendor qualifications and experience history, 1 page for UNCLASSIFIED proposed schedule, and 3 pages for UNCLASSIFIED ROM costs. 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 response 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 a diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is encouraged.

6. WPs 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 1.5.

3.3 Content of WPs

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 Unique Entity ID (UEI)

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 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.

3.4 WP Approach

The Offeror will ensure its WP adequately describes the proposed technical 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 is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete and is supported by a technical team that has the expertise and capabilities to accomplish the proposed tasks. The following must be addressed:

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 current and projected capabilities of the Offeror’s MFPR to include performance data.

c. Process and procedures to inspect and accept subsystems.

d. Ability to integrate within the MDACS mission

e. Facilities/equipment available to carry out the proposed effort and how they meet or exceed required tolerances and precisions.

f. Overview of tasks and methods planned to achieve each objective and the final product delivery in accordance with the SOO.

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

h. Identify and assert any restrictions on the Government's use, release, or disclosure of technical data or computer software pertaining to its proposal submission IAW the instructions provided in Exhibit A below. 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. Schedule: Provide a Gantt chart that outlines work to be performed with deliverables and key milestones, representative of the proposed technical approach.

3. ROM Costs: Describe the estimated costs and proposed fee for the proposed technical approach. Provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) using the Government provided WBS and any assumptions pertaining to price for how this concept could be achieved. 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. The Offeror should describe general methods (e.g. expert judgment, analogous estimating, 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 no later than 4QFY27. If applicable, include any suggested cost share distribution or creative costing approaches to maximize successful completion within the constrained schedule.

1.0 Multi-Function Precision Radar (MFPR)

1.1 Program Management

1.2 Systems Engineering

1.2.1 Software

1.3 Integration, Assembly, Test, and Checkout

1.4 Peculiar Support Equipment

1.5 Common Support Equipment

1.6 Test and Evaluation

1.7 OPTION Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

1.8 OPTION Two (2) prototypes

1.9 OPTION TDP

Fee Price

4. Qualifications and Experience

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

Related prior or current work, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contracts and Independent Research & Development (IR&D) projects related to the development and integration of radars similar in scope and complexity to MFPR. Provide contract numbers and POCs for Government sponsored efforts.

b. Identify team member 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, CAGE code and UEI

(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

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.

3.5 Submission of WPs

Information and dates regarding questions about, and submission of, WPs are stated above in Section 1.6.

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

3.6 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.

4.0 Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

When invited to do so by the Government, an Offeror may develop and submit a proposal. A proposal is defined as a cost proposal and accompanying PWS. A notification will be sent to the

Offeror(s) that submitted a WP that represents the most advantageous solution, requesting the Offeror(s) to submit a cost proposal.

4.1 PWS Content

1. The Offeror shall utilize Government SOO to develop proposed PWS performance requirements.

2. The Offeror shall identify the primary performer and the performer’s certification status (non-traditional/traditional defense contractor) for each task.

3. The Offeror shall address and include all applicable deliverables.

4.2 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.

The maximum page count for the cost proposal is three (3) pages. 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.

4.3 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 WP, allowing the Government to seek another proposal.

5.0 Evaluation Information

5.1 White Paper Evaluation Criteria

WPs will be evaluated using four (4) criteria. These criteria are listed below, in descending order of importance.

1. WP Evaluation Criteria #1: Technical Approach

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

(1) Provide evidence, with analysis, of compliance with the Cross Range Noise Spectral

Density (CRNSD) requirement as defined in the Initial Technical Performance Measures (TPMs) provided in the appendix to the SOO. Additionally, responses must include Blake Charts and tabulated radar characteristics and performance parameters to assist response assessments. Failure to address this requirement will render the Offeror’s solution unacceptable.

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

(3) Proposed approach to develop, test and deliver the prototype MFPR to include integrating onto a GFP platform.

(4) Present task schedule, key milestones, projected timelines and proposed critical path(s) consistent with the proposed technical approach to ensure delivery per the SOO no later than 4QFY27.

2. 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.WP Evaluation Criteria #2 – Schedule –

a. Whether the proposed schedule is realistic and executable for the proposed technical approach to the extent appropriate and reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

3. WP Evaluation Criteria #3 – ROM Cost –

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

4. WP Evaluation Criteria #4: 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 relevance of related prior or current work experience for the development and integration of radar systems similar in scope and complexity to the MFPR.

b. Present effective 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.

c. Identify sufficiently qualified key technical and management personnel to successfully execute the proposed technical approach and support SOO performance requirements.

The assessment of key personnel will consider the extent to which proposed key technical and management personnel qualifications relate to the SOO performance requirements.

d. 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.

5.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the cost/price and will evaluate whether the proposed cost/price reflect 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. The Offeror shall map hours to the appropriate PWS paragraph. Concurrent to this evaluation, the Government will ensure that the proposed PWS accurately reflects the full breadth of the project, including properly addressing the Government

SOO and specific tasks, deliverables and milestones required to successfully complete the prototype project. As needed, the Government may negotiate with the Vendor to adjust the PWS, 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 PWS for the proposal of the Offeror with the next best technical solution. 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).

5.3 Offeror Exchanges

Once the Government determines that a cost proposal represents the most advantageous solution based on all evaluation criteria identified in Section 5.2, 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. The process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a prototype agreement is awarded. If additional funding subsequently becomes available, and funding of additional awards becomes possible, the Government reserves the right to engage the Offeror(s) with the next best cost proposal solution(s) based on the original cost proposal evaluation and to address any remaining issues with such Offeror(s). Alternatively, the Government reserves the right to consider OTAP awards for partial solutions to Offerors who submitted WPs with particularly meritorious and unique aspects or approaches to subsets of the overall problem set, if additional funding becomes available.

6.0 Award Information

Awards of prototype projects as a result of this announcement will be in the form of an OTAP. To receive an award, the Offeror(s) must be in compliance with the statutory requirements at 10 U.S.C. § 4022.

To receive an award, an Offeror must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and must have a UEI number. This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the right party. The Offeror must be considered a responsible party by the Agreements Officer, must not be suspended or debarred from such agreement by the Federal Government, and must not be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order or law from receiving such award.

7.0 Other Information

7.1 Follow-On Production Work

The authority at 10 U.S.C. § 4022, paragraph (f) provides the authority to enter into awards for follow-on production to successful participants of an agreement under the authority of a OTAP utilizing competitive procedures. This effort anticipates the need for possible follow-on production.

The requirement for competition has been met through the RFWP process, and upon successful completion of the prototype project and subject to the availability of funds, the Government reserves the right to proceed into a production Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract or production OTA on a non-competitive basis. This prototype project will be deemed completed and successful upon the result of the system characterization, as the Government determines.

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

1. Certain aspects of work performed under this prototype project will be done at the SECRET level.

2. CUI generated and/or provided under this prototype project shall be safeguarded and marked as specified in DoDM 5200.01, Vols 1-4.

3. AT Level I Training. All contractor employees, including subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities, and controlled-access areas shall complete AT Level I awareness training within 30 calendar days after the contract start date or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable.

The contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected contractor employee and subcontractor employee, to the Agreement Officer Representative (AOR) or to the contracting officer, if a AOR is not assigned, within 30 calendar days after completion of training by all employees and subcontractor personnel. AT Level I awareness training is available at the following website: http://jko.jten.mil

4. Access and General Protection Policy and Procedures. Contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees shall provide all information required for background checks to meet installation access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. Contractor workforce must comply with all personal identity verification requirements (FAR clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel) as directed by DoD, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and/or local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) at any individual facility or installation change, the Government may require changes in contractor security matters or processes.

5. For Contractor not eligible for CAC but requires access to DoD facility or installation.

Contractor and all associated sub-contractor employees shall comply with adjudication standards and procedures using the National Crime Information Center Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III) and Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) (Army Directive 2014-05/AR 190-13), applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by Government representative), or, at OCONUS locations, in accordance with status of forces agreements and other theater regulations.

6. iWATCH Training. The contractor and all associated sub-contractors shall brief all employees on the local iWATCH program (training standards provided by the requiring http://jko.jten.mil/ activity). This locally- developed training will be used to inform employees of the types of behavior to watch for and instruct employees to report suspicious activity to the AOR. This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the AOR NLT 30 calendar days after contract award.

7. Army Training Certification Tracking System (ATCTS) Registration for Contractor

Employees who Require Access to Government Information Systems. All contractor employees with access to a Government info system must be registered in the ATCTS at commencement of services, and must successfully complete the DoD Information Assurance Awareness prior to access to the IS and then annually thereafter.

8. Requirement for OPSEC Training. Per AR 530-1 Operations Security, the contractor employees must complete Level I OPSEC Awareness training. New employees must be trained within 30 calendar days of their reporting for duty and annually thereafter.

9. Information Assurance (IA)/Information Technology (IT) Training. All contractor employees and associated sub-contractor employees must complete the DoD IA awareness training before issuance of network access and annually thereafter. All contractor employees working in IA/IT functions must comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoDD 8570.01, DoDM 8140.03 and AR 25-2 within six months of appointment to IA/IT functions.

10. Information Assurance/Information Technology Training Certification. Per DoDM

8140.03, DFARS 252.239.7001 and AR 25-2, the contractor employees supporting IA/IT functions shall be appropriately certified upon contract award. The baseline certification as stipulated in DoDM 8140.03 must be completed upon contract award.

11. Threat Awareness Reporting Program. For all contractors with security clearances. Per

AR 381-12 Threat Awareness and Reporting Program (TARP), contractor employees must receive annual TARP training by a counterintelligence agent or other trainer as specified in 2-4b.

12. Technical data and reports produced as a result of this prototype project will be marked

DISTRIBUTION D. Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (Administrative Use) (20 May 2016). Request to disseminate this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, ATTN: SAAL-RCC, Building 3307 Wells Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898.

13. CUI is information the Government creates or possesses, or that an entity creates or possesses for or on behalf of the Government, that a law, regulation, or Government-wide policy requires or permits an agency to handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls.

However, CUI does not include classified information (see definition above) or information a non-executive branch entity possesses and maintains in its own systems that did not come from, or was not created or possessed by or for, an executive branch agency or an entity acting for an agency. Law, regulation, or Government-wide policy may require or permit safeguarding or dissemination controls in three ways: Requiring or permitting agencies to control or protect the information but providing no specific controls, which makes the information CUI Basic; requiring or permitting agencies to control or protect the information and providing specific controls for doing so, which makes the information CUI Specified; or requiring or permitting agencies to control the information and specifying only some of those controls, which makes the information CUI Specified, but with CUI Basic controls where the authority does not specify.

14. Mark submitted documents appropriately, including pages which contain sensitive, proprietary, or CUI.