IBAS_FOA.pdf

Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center – Rock

Island

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (FOA)

For Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program

(W52P1J‐16‐R‐0001)

31 Dec 2015

Issued by:

U.S. Army Contracting Command – Rock Island

Rock Island, IL

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Funding Opportunity……………………………………………………………………… II. Funding Opportunity Description……………..………………………………………………………………..5 III. Award Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 IV. Eligibility Information………………………………………………………………………………………………..7

1. Eligible Applicants

2. Application Limitations

3. Cost Sharing

4. Fiscal Limitations

5. Government Furnished Equipment

6. System for Award Management (SAM) V. Application and Submission Information………………………………………………………………

1. Where to find information

2. Submission Dates and Times

3. Funding Restrictions

4. Other Restrictions

5. White Paper Overview and Format

6. Proposal Overview and Format VI. Application Review Information……………………………………………………………………………..15

1. White Paper Evaluation Criteria and Ratings

2. Proposal Evaluation Criteria

3. Proposal Evaluation Ratings VII. Award Administration Information.……………………………………………………………………….16

1. Award Notices

2. Administrative Requirements

3. Reporting and Other IBAS Program Requirements VIII. Contracting and Agency Points of Contact……………………………………………………………..22

1. Grant Officer

2. IBAS Program Administrative Agency IX. Other Information……………………………………………………………………………………………….…23

I Overview of Funding Opportunity

Agency Name – Department of Defense, Army, Research, Development, and Engineering

Command (RDECOM), Edgewood Chemical Biological Center ‐ Rock Island (ECBC‐RI), 1 Rock Island Arsenal Building 62, Rock Island, IL 61299

Program Name ‐ Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base

Policy (DASD(MIBP)) Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) Program

Funding Opportunity Title ‐ Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program

Funding Opportunity Number – W52P1J‐16‐R‐0001

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) – 12.630

CFDA Title(s) ‐ Optional – Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science and Engineering

Executive Summary ‐ Under Title 10, section 2508 of the U.S. Code, the Secretary of Defense established an industrial base fund, controlled by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L), and acted through the DASD (MIBP) using the IBAS assistance program.

The intent of the IBAS Program is to:

Fund projects that support multiple Services and/or DoD Agencies Support the National Defense Strategy by maintaining or improving the health of Critical and Fragile IB capabilities that are at risk of being lost, but are needed presently or have verified future requirements

Avoid reconstitution costs when affordable Preserve design teams with critical workforce skills necessary for technological superiority Support expansion and competition of reliable sources Address critical issues relating to urgent operational needs

Focus Areas – This FOA is being used to collect White Papers/Proposals in the following five Focus Areas identified by the DASD (MIBP) as Fragile and Critical IB capabilities (further described in Section II):

Space Qualified Mercury Cadmium Telluride (MCT) Infrared (IR) Sensors and Readout

Integrated Circuits (ROIC) Radiation Hardened Digital/Analog Technology Production and Qualification Radiation Hardened Field‐Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) Trusted Source Thermal Batteries Other

Overview of the Entire Process ‐ All interested offerors will first be invited to submit a White

Paper, per Section V. The Government will evaluate the White Papers, and assign a rating of “Promising” or “Not of Interest” using the criteria described in section VI. Exchanges between the Government and an offeror may occur after submission of a White Paper, prior to assigning a rating on the White Paper. It is the Government’s intent only to notify those White Papers deemed “Promising”. After receipt of notification, those offerors found to have submitted a “Promising” White Papers shall be encouraged to submit a Proposal.

The next phase will involve the submission of a detailed Proposal, per Section V. Offerors who received a White Paper rating of “Promising” will be invited to submit a Proposal. Proposals from offerors whose White Papers were deemed “Not of Interest” may be disregarded at the Government’s discretion without any consideration, nor will these offerors be encouraged to submit a Proposal. The Government will evaluate all Proposals and make its selection decisions based on the Proposal selection criteria in Section VI.

The Government may make a few large dollar amount awards, several small dollar awards, or some combination thereof. The Government reserves the right to make as few or as many awards as are in its best interests.

Important Dates

A White Paper is required prior to receiving a request for proposal. White Papers shall be submitted no later than close of business February 19, 2016 by e‐mail to David J Burke, Contract Officer for the Department of Army, Army contracting Command, Rock Island, Illinois, david.j.burke45.civ@mail.mil.

The Government will evaluate all White Papers and assign ratings using the criteria detailed in Section VI. At a future date, the Government will announce a firm date for receipt of proposals. Those receiving the notification of a “Promising” White Paper will be notified via e‐mail and be given at least 45 days to develop and submit a Proposal by following the “Submit an Application Package” instructions on www.grants.gov.

Notification that a proposal has been chosen for the program will be sent via e‐mail no later than (NLT) October 1, 2016.

It is anticipated that the Grant Assistance will be awarded by November 30, 2016.

The period of performance shall not extend past September 30, 2018.

Additional Information

Efforts detailed in the White Paper/Proposal should be limited to a two (2) year date of execution starting October 1, 2016, regardless of when funding is received. The proposal’s expenditure plan must meet the Comptroller expenditure rates in Section V.4.b. The IBAS Program funds projects using Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations, Budget Activity 7 (Operational System Development). More information on this, as well as other restrictions, can be found in Section V. Offerors shall ensure that the objectives outlined in the White Paper/Proposal can be executed within budget parameters of the RDT&E appropriation and within the time frame.

If a White Paper and/or Proposal is conditioned on the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), the offerors shall indicate what rights they currently have to use the GFE and if any conditions apply. Offerors are cautioned that the IBAS program does not have any influence or control over whether or not GFE can be used on a White Paper/Proposal submission. White Papers/Proposals should clearly address any risks which may be associated with the unavailability of proposed GFE.

II Funding Opportunity Description

The Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) Program was established under 10 U.S. Code 2508 by the Secretary of Defense. It is directed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (DASD(MIBP)) Office. The Administrative Agent is Edgewood Chemical Biological Center – Rock Island (ECBC‐RI). IBAS is a defense‐wide program with a mission to maintain or improve the health of the Department of Defense (DoD) Industrial Base (IB). The program addresses Fragile and Critical IB issues that need mitigation. Fragility examines characteristics that make a specific capability likely to be disrupted. Criticality examines characteristics that make a specific capability difficult to replace if it is disrupted. The program funds projects that:

Support multiple Services and/or DoD Agencies

Support the National Defense Strategy by maintaining or improving the health of Fragile and

Critical IB capabilities that are at risk of being lost, but are needed presently or have verified future requirements.

Avoid the loss of a Fragile and Critical capability and the associated reconstitution cost, when affordable.

Preserve design teams with critical skills necessary for technological superiority.

Support expansion and competition of reliable domestic sources.

Support expansion of the DoD IB.

Address Critical issues relating to urgent operational needs/vulnerabilities.

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is being used to collect White Papers in the following five Focus Areas identified by the DASD(MIBP) as Fragile and Critical IB capabilities:

1) Space Qualified Mercury Cadmium Telluride (MCT) Infrared (IR) Sensors and Readout Integrated

Circuits (ROIC) ‐ Mercury Cadmium Telluride (HgCdTe or MCT) IR sensors permit highest performance and highest technology/manufacturing readiness levels (TRL/MRL) for tactical/strategic/space applications. Volumes for HgCdTe wafer fabrication production has plummeted well below the historical annual average. Forecasts predict volume to fall below the minimum for this Critical technology. This announcement is seeking white papers demonstrating an approach to:

a) Preserve capability by manufacturing additional wafers targeting the performance requirements for space infrared sensors.

b) Create Multi‐Beam Epitaxy (MBE) grown Infrared HgCdTe/CdZnTe (Cadmium Zinc Telluride) wafers patterned with detector arrays/hybrids having future National Security System sensor‐beneficial format.

c) Identify yield and cost drivers and investigate improvements.

d) Reduce cost to maintain manufacturing capability for several future minimum wafer/year scenarios.

e) Sustain Subject Matter Expert/Design staff expertise.

2) Radiation Hardened Digital/Analog Technology Production and Qualification ‐ There is currently a limited/diminishing domestic source for radiation hardened (RH) electronics that meet National Security System (NSS) requirements. Reliable, trusted US sources of radiation hardened high performance, low power integrated circuits (IC) with advanced technology nodes at or near 45nm are needed for future DoD systems. This announcement is seeking white papers that demonstrate a capability and capacity to meet demand at established performance requirements in the following specific technology areas: digital application specific ICs, processors and memories; analog mixed signal; field programmable gate array; discretes;

photonics and photovoltaics.

3) Radiation Hardened Field‐Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) Trusted Source ‐ FPGAs are used widely in NSS and are critical to avionics, communication, missiles and munitions, etc. The Government requires trusted sources in order to minimize/eliminate the risk of malicious circuitry inserted into the blocks. The Space Industry also requires a Radiation Hardened (Rad Hard) FPGA family that will be resistant to damage from ionizing radiation found in outer space and high altitudes. This announcement is seeking white papers that demonstrate a plan to:

a) Establish a trusted supply chain for FPGA (design, foundry, programming tools).

b) Enhance current supply chains or productions lines (this funding cannot be used to purchase major equipment).

c) Apply hardness design techniques for space applications.

d) Pursue alternatives.

4) Thermal Batteries ‐ The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and DoD have a wider variety of uses for thermal batteries: missiles and munitions, weapon systems, ejection seats, etc. Thermal Batteries are a niche market with highly specialized technical and manufacturing skill set. There is ongoing concern with the health of the industrial base and surge capacity when needed due to the skill set required and shrinking demands. This announcement is seeking white papers that demonstrate a plan for the development of technology for performance, reliability, manufacturing, cost, and/or storage life improvements in thermal batteries used in missiles and weapons systems. The technical innovations should exhibit an enhancement to the thermal battery industrial base as priority and design improvements as an added benefit. Industrial base enhancement can be achieved by (but not limited to) manufacturing improvements, design team sustainment, reducing/eliminating scarce materials, supply chain changes (sub‐vendor qualifications), etc.

5) Other ‐ A White Paper may be submitted if a Government entity has performed a Fragility and Criticality Assessment on an IB capability and determined it to need urgent mitigation. Along with the White Paper, a copy of the assessment and an endorsement by the Government entity must be provided.

III. Award Information

The total amount of funding for this effort is currently $4M, with the possibility of an increase before Fiscal Year 2017 begins. The intent is to fund up to 3 proposals ranging from $750,000 ‐ $2M, yet this numerical range is subject to change. The effort can be a continuation or supplementation of an existing project as long as the IBAS intent is met. See section V.2 for all submission and award dates.

IV Eligibility Information

1) Eligible Applicants – Response to this FOA is open to private businesses, United States

Government Agencies, and public businesses.

2) Application Limit – Five (5) applications per entity.

3) Cost Sharing – Cost sharing is not required; however, Offerors may propose a cost sharing arrangement. Acceptance of a cost sharing arrangement shall be at the discretion of the Government.

4) Fiscal Limitations – None of the funds made available by this announcement may be used to enter into a grant with a corporation that:

a) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

b) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension of or debarment of the corporation and made determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

5) If a White Paper and/or Proposal is conditioned on the use of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), the offerors shall indicate what rights they currently have to use the GFE and if any conditions apply. Offerors are cautioned that the IBAS program does not have any influence or control over whether or not GFE can be used on a White Paper/Proposal submission. White Papers/Proposals should clearly address any risks which may be associated with the unavailability of proposed GFE.

6) In accordance with DoD policy, prospective offerors must be registered in the System for Award

Management (SAM) prior to being awarded with a grant, during performance, and through the final payment.

V Application and Submission Information

1) All information to submit an application is contained in the FOA document, however, amendments may be posted on www.grants.gov under the Funding Opportunity Number.

2) Submission and Award Dates and Times

A White Paper is required prior to receiving a request for proposal. White Papers should be submitted no later than close of business February 19, 2016 by e‐mail to David J Burke, Contract Officer for the Department of Army, Army contracting Command, Rock Island, Illinois, david.j.burke45.civ@mail.mil.

The Government will evaluate all White Papers and assign ratings using the criteria detailed in Section VI. Those receiving the notification of a “Promising” White Paper will be given at least 45 days to develop and submit a Proposal by following the “Submit an Application Package” instructions on www.grants.gov.

Notification that a proposal has been chosen for the program will be sent via email no later than (NLT) October 1, 2016.

It is anticipated that the Grant Assistance will be awarded by November 30, 2016.

The period of performance shall not extend beyond September 30, 2018, regardless of whether funding is delayed.

3) Funding Restrictions

Awarded projects will be funded with Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds, Budget Activity (BA) 7, Operational Systems Development. Information can be found in the Financial Management Regulation, DoD 7000.14‐R, Volume 2B, Chapter 5 and Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) Manual 7097.01, Section 2‐0400. This includes funding research and development efforts directed toward development, engineering, and test of changes to fielded systems or systems already in procurement which alter the performance envelopes. This funding will not finance construction, test facilities, major equipment procurement, or development of new technologies that will not be used on currently fielded system. Program control will be exercised by review of individual projects.

4) Other Restrictions

Offerors shall ensure that the objectives outlined in the White Paper/Proposal can be executed taking into account the following restrictions:

a) Efforts are limited to a two (2) year date of execution starting October 1, 2016 regardless of when funding is received.

b) The end of the period of performance shall not extend beyond September 30, 2018.

c) Proposed expenditures must meet or exceed the Comptroller’s target rates indicated in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Comptroller Expenditures

d) Offeror shall indicate what rights they currently have to use any Government Furnished

Equipment (GFE) mentioned in a White Paper/Proposal and if any conditions apply.

Offerors are cautioned that the IBAS program does not have any influence or control over whether or not GFE can be used on a White Paper/Proposal submission. White Papers/Proposals should clearly address any risks which may be associated with the unavailability of proposed GFE.

5) White Paper Overview and Format

a) White Paper Overview ‐ White Papers are initially sought to preclude unwarranted effort on the part of the offeror in preparing full technical and cost Proposals without an initial evaluation to ensure the effort meets the criteria of the IBAS Program. Offerors submitting White Papers will be evaluated and rated as outlined in Section V. Those that receive a rating of “Promising” will be encouraged to submit a full technical and cost Proposal on all or part of their White Paper submission. However, any such encouragement does not assure a subsequent award. Any offeror may submit a full Proposal even if its White Paper was not identified as promising, however note that Proposals based on White Papers which were not promising may be summarily rejected by the Government without consideration, depending on the best interests of the Government. White Papers shall be submitted by e‐ mail to David J Burke, Contract Officer for the Department of Army, Army contracting Command, Rock Island, Illinois, david.j.burke45.civ@mail.mil. See section IV.2 for submission dates.

b) White Paper Format

i) Submitted responses should be provided on standard letter size 8‐1/2 by 11 inch paper, 1 inch margins, limited to a maximum of five (5) double‐spaced pages. The font should be Times New Roman 12‐point or larger. Submitted responses should be in Microsoft

Word or Adobe Acrobat format. Existing commercial documentation and product literature can be submitted as Appendices which are not subject to the page limitation.

ii) Classification and Proprietary Data ‐ Responses must be unclassified, but may contain proprietary information that must be appropriately marked. To protect such proprietary data, each line or paragraph on pages containing such data must be specifically identified and marked with a legend similar to the following:

“The following contains proprietary information that (name of Responder) requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for the purposes of review and evaluation.”

iii) Recommended Sections ‐ The numbering does not have to be used.

(1) Title ‐ Project Name

(2) Submitter Information.

(a) Offeror point of contact (POC), phone number, e‐mail address.

(b) Manufacturer/company name, CAGE code, and location of performance.

(c) Technical POC if different than (a), phone number, e‐mail address.

(3) Government Customers/Interested Organizations.

(a) Identify the government customers with technical or programmatic expertise with the industrial base issue. This could be the Program Executive Officer, Acquisition Program Office, Government organization, Government agency, etc.

(b) Provide any contract numbers and POCs for current or pending DoD and/or other Federal contracts with the manufacturer.

(c) Identify the appropriate government Programs of Record including POCs that can provide additional information useful to the FOA White paper submission reviewers. If space limitation is a problem, this can be included in an Appendix since those pages do not count toward page requirement.

(4) Critical Capability Impacted ‐ Describe the current capability, its importance to the government, and the impact if funding is not received. At a minimum, include the following:

(a) Capability Description ‐ Describe the capability, its relationship to one of the focus areas, and its importance to the Government. Indicate current and future DoD programs.

(b) Problem Statement ‐ Describe the nature of the problem, the risk/impact if no funding is received, and any other considerations that increase the need for the project.

(5) Proposed Plan ‐ Describe the plan for improving the health of the industrial base in the focus area. Make the plan understandable to the reviewers.

(a) Technical approach. Outline the approach to improve or sustain the capability and the industrial base in the focus area. Identify what the implementation would accomplish and how. Include major milestones.

(b) Cost Estimate. Provide a rough order of magnitude cost estimate to include labor, material, and equipment.

(c) Benefit to Government. Quantifiable or non‐quantifiable benefit to Government. Quantifiable benefits have numeric values such as dollars, physical count of tangible items, or percentage change. Examples include cost reduction, savings, cost avoidance, revenue generation, productivity improvements, number of items, reliability ratios, accuracy, timeliness, etc.

Non‐quantifiable benefits do not lend themselves to direct and quantitative measures. Although subjective in nature, qualitative statements can make a positive contribution to the analysis. The proposal preparer should use the best analytical practices in order to include difficult to quantify benefits in the analysis. Some examples of non‐quantifiable benefits are morale, compatibility, quality, security, and readiness. Generally speaking, non‐quantifiable benefits do not provide as much support for a course of action as quantitative benefits

do. It is important to note that the term “non‐quantifiable” is not meant to imply that the benefit is impossible to quantify, only that the resources and methodologies required to produce a useful measure may be impractical for the scope of the cost benefit analysis

(d) Transition Sustainment Plan. Include a brief description of the transition plan to keep the industrial base healthy after IBAS funding is gone in order to provide long‐term sustainment of the capability for future DoD needs.

6) Proposal Overview and Format

a) Proposal Overview ‐ The Government may consider a Proposal from an offeror that does not submit a White Paper, or who’s White Paper is evaluated to be “Not of Interest.” However, the Government also reserves the right to immediately reject these Proposals without further consideration, if it is in the Government’s best interest to do so. The Government’s initial evaluation of the White Papers should give potential offerors some indication of whether a full proposal may result in an award. If the White Paper is identified as “Not of Interest”, it is likely that no award would be made to a Proposal submitted on that same topic.

b) Proposal Format

i) Submitted responses should be provided on standard letter size 8‐1/2 by 11 inch paper, limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) double‐spaced pages. The font for the text should be Times New Roman 12‐point or larger. Submitted responses should be in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat format. Existing commercial documentation and product literature can also be submitted as Appendices which are not subject to a page limitation.

ii) Classification and Proprietary Data ‐ Responses must be unclassified, but may contain proprietary information that must be appropriately marked. To protect such proprietary data, each line or paragraph on pages containing such data must be specifically identified and marked with a legend similar to the following:

“The following contains proprietary information that (name of Responder) requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for the purposes of review and evaluation.”

iii) Cover Sheet ‐ Shall include the following information:

(1) FOA Number

(2) Proposal Title

(3) Submitter Information

(a) Offeror point of contact (POC), phone number, e‐mail address.

(b) Manufacturer/company name, CAGE code, and location of performance.

(c) Technical POC if different than (a), phone number, e‐mail address.

(4) Government Customers/Interested Organizations

(a) Identify the government customers with technical or programmatic expertise with the industrial base issue. This could be the Program Executive Officer, Acquisition Program Office, Government organization, Government agency, etc.

(b) Provide any contract numbers and POCs for current or pending DoD and/or other Federal contracts with the manufacturer.

(c) Identify the appropriate government Programs of Record including POCs that can provide additional information useful to the FOA White paper submission reviewers. If space limitation is a problem, this can be included in an Appendix since those pages do not count toward page requirement

(5) FOA Technical Focus Area

(6) Total Proposed Cost

(7) Date

(8) Proposal Validity Period

iv) Sections. The following sections for the proposal are recommended to assist the Government in the preparation of the contractual SOW to expedite the award. Please use the following numbering system:

Table of Contents:

1.0 Objective

2.0 Scope

3.0 Background

4.0 Tasks/Technical Requirements

1st sub‐level 4.1 Task 2nd sub‐level 4.1.1 Sub‐task 3rd sub‐level 4.1.1.1 second level sub‐task

(1) OBJECTIVE: This section is intended to give a brief overview and should describe why it is being pursued, and what you are trying to accomplish.

(2) SCOPE: This section should include the technology area to be investigated, objectives/goals, and major milestones for the effort.

(3) BACKGROUND: This section includes any information, explanations, or constraints that are necessary in order to understand the requirements. It may include relationship to previous, current and future operations. It may also include techniques previously tried and found ineffective. Include past, current, and future programs that the capability is used on.

(4) TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:

(a) This section contains the detailed description of tasks which represent the work to be performed which are contractually binding.

(b) The work effort should be segregated into major tasks and identified in separately numbered paragraphs according to the decimal system above. Each numbered major task should delineate, by subtask, the work to be performed.

(c) The tasks must be definite, realistic, and clearly stated. Use “shall” whenever the work statement expresses a provision that is binding. Use “should” or “may” whenever it is necessary to express a declaration of purpose. Use “will” in cases where no offeror requirement is involved; e.g., power will be supplied by the Government. Use active voice in describing work to be performed.

(d) Do not use acronyms or abbreviations without spelling‐out acronyms and abbreviations at the first use; place the abbreviation in parenthesis immediately following a spelled‐ out phrase. This provides the definition for each subsequent reuse. As an option, a glossary may contain definitions of acronyms and abbreviations.

(5) TECHNICAL RATIONALE:

(a) Provide the technical rationale for the objective requirement including technology advancements and value‐added to DoD capabilities.

(b) Provide technical rationale, business case analysis, and any supporting details for the technical approach for each major task/activity.

(c) If applicable, provide a comparison of the technical objectives and technical approach with other ongoing research and existing state‐of‐the‐art, indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

(d) Provide a technical discussion of the analysis of alternatives that substantiates the proposed effort versus other courses of action.

(6) SUSTAINMENT PLAN: Demonstrate that the proposed effort provides long‐term sustainment of the capability for future DoD needs.

(7) SCHEDULE: Provide a detailed integrated schedule of all initial phase activities including a spend plan.

(a) Include key events and spend plans for the technology concept.

(b) All tasks and funds in the integrated master schedule (IMS) shall be linked and the ability to display the Critical path shall be implemented.

(c) If proposal is awarded, an updated schedule and spend plan with actuals to date shall be provided each month.

(8) COST: Detailed cost breakdown shall include:

(a) Provide the total program cost and costs broken down by initial phase and options.

(b) Provide costs broken down for the initial phase including as minimum:

Direct labor including labor categories and man‐hours Cost by the prime and major subcontractors Cost by major task/activity Materials Other Direct Costs (ODCs), (e.g., travel, equipment, etc.)

Overhead/Indirect charges and rates used to calculate overhead/indirect costs Provide the source, nature, and amount of any industry cost‐sharing Identify the pricing assumptions that may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Expert/s, etc.).

Proposed cost sharing arrangement (if applicable)

(9) BENEFIT TO GOVERNMENT: Identify benefits to the Government if the project is funded. The following steps are recommended to identify benefits and establish quantitative measures for benefits where possible.

(a) Identify all resources flowing into the project and the resulting outputs and outcomes flowing out of the project.

(b) Determine and list the benefits of each alternative, both quantifiable and non‐ quantifiable. Quantifiable benefits have numeric values such as dollars, physical count of tangible items, or percentage change. Examples include cost reduction, savings, cost avoidance, revenue generation, productivity improvements, number of items, reliability ratios, accuracy, timeliness, etc. Non‐quantifiable benefits do not lend themselves to direct and quantitative measures. Although subjective in nature, qualitative statements can make a positive contribution to the analysis. The proposal preparer should use the best analytical practices in order to include difficult to quantify benefits in the analysis. Some examples of non‐quantifiable benefits are morale, compatibility, quality, security, and readiness. Generally speaking, non‐quantifiable benefits do not provide as much support for a course of action as quantitative benefits do. It is important to note that the term “non‐quantifiable” is not meant to imply that the benefit is impossible to quantify, only that the resources and methodologies required to produce a useful measure may be impractical for the scope of the cost benefit analysis.

(c) Define each benefit in relation to the alternative(s). All benefits included must be relevant to the analysis. Each benefit must be clearly and distinctly identifiable from all other benefits; it should not duplicate or overlap any other measure.

(d) Develop a quantitative measure for each benefit where possible. This will allow direct comparison of alternative(s) for each benefit.

VI Application Review Information

1) White Paper Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation: The evaluation criteria below will be used to assign each White Paper one of the following ratings: “Promising” or “Not of Interest”. Evaluation results will be received via e‐mail notification for those offerors deemed “Promising”. Rating definitions are as follows:

a) Promising ‐ White Paper demonstrates good understanding of the IBAS Program’s objectives; displays a solid technical approach; and has a medium to high probability of achieving all or most of the requirements of the program. White Paper has one or more strengths that can significantly benefit the government.

b) Not of Interest ‐ White Paper demonstrates a little or no understanding of the IBAS

Program’s objectives and/or the approach has little probability of achieving any requirements of the program. White Paper proposes a less than minimally acceptable solution to the Government.

2) Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation: The evaluation criteria below will be used to rate each proposal:

a) Includes all required information in proper format.

b) Demonstrates relevance to one of the focus areas and knowledge of project’s importance to the industrial base.

c) Demonstrates a clear understanding of the IBAS Program objectives.

d) Proposes an identifiable, realistic, and timely execution schedule and spend plan to include risk assessment and mitigation plan.

e) Provides an identifiable and understandable technical plan for the sustainment or improvement of the capability that is consistent with the concept in the White Paper.

f) Identifies a clear benefit to the Government.

g) Includes detailed and reasonable costs that can be funded with RDT&E, BA 7 appropriations.

Cost realism shall be performed on the proposed costs, any fee, and any proposed cost sharing arrangements. The most probable cost, calculated utilizing cost realism and price analyses, will be used in determining realism and affordability to the Government.

h) Provides an identifiable and realistic Sustainment/Transition plan post funding.

3) Proposal Evaluation Ratings: The evaluation criteria below will be used to assign each Proposal one of the following ratings: “Category I, “Category II” or “Category III”. Rating definitions are as follows:

a) Category I Demonstrates technical merit. Is important to agency programs. The offeror presents relevant experience and access to adequate resources. Risk is acceptable. The cost/price is reasonable and realistic. Proposals in Category I are recommended for acceptance (subject to availability of funds) and normally are displaced only by other Category I Proposals.

b) Category II Demonstrates technical merit; is important to agency programs; and presents relevant experience and access to adequate resources; but requires further development.

Risk is acceptable. The cost/price is reasonable and realistic. Category II Proposals are recommended for acceptance, but at a lower priority than Category I.

c) Category III Does not demonstrate technical merit; does not meet agency needs; does not present adequate experience or resources; the risk level is unacceptable; or the cost/price is not reasonable or realistic.

The Government will determine which Proposal or Proposals to make award to, based on a consideration of the Category rating, available funds, and the best interests of the Government and the IBAS Program in sustaining the Department of Defense IB. The Government may make award to some, none, or all of the Proposals received. The Government’s determination will be documented in a written decision.

**Note that the Government may not necessarily contact all offerors who submit a Proposal, and does not intend to provide any kind of debriefing for offerors whose Proposals are not selected for award. Offerors who receive an award will be contacted by the Contracting Officer to arrange for the details of award administration and performance.

VII Award Administration Information

1) Award Notices – By October 1, 2016, a successful applicant will be notified by formal letter via e‐ mail that their proposal has been selected for award. However, a letter is not an authorization to begin performance. Rather, a signed award document provided by the grants officer is the authorizing document, which will be provided through e‐mail. No debriefing of offerors will be provided.

2) Administrative Requirements

a) Offerors submitting proposals for grants must comply with the National Policy Requirements

Matrix, Appendix “C”, found at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/fedrtc/appc_apr14.pdf

b) Protection of Human Subjects – All research involving human subjects must be conducted in accordance with 32 CFR 219, 10 U.S.C. 980, and DoDI 3216.02, as well as other applicable federal and state regulations. Contractors/grantees must be cognizant of and abide by the additional restriction and limitations imposed on the DoD regarding research involving human subjects, specifically as regard vulnerable populations (32 CFR 219 modification to subparts B‐D of 45 CFR 46), recruitment of military research subjects (32 CFR 219), and surrogate consent (10 U.S.C. 980). The regulations mandate that all DoD activities, components, and agencies protect the rights and welfare of human subjects of study in Do‐ support research, development, test and evaluation, and related activities hereafter referred to as “research”. The requirement to comply with the regulation applies to new starts and continuing research.

c) The appropriate clauses shall be added at the time of the contract/grant award.

3) Reporting and Other IBAS Program Requirements

a) Monthly Financial Reports ‐ The report is due to the IBAS POCs by the 20th of each month from the onset of the program until all money has been expended. It includes updates on the project and contract efforts and a financial chart with the following information:

i) Obligation Actual – Amount of funding that has been obligated by the government for the project.

ii) Spend Plan – Planned project expenditures by month.

iii) Earned Actuals – The total value of the work performed on the project which includes billed and unbilled work.

iv) Submitted Invoices – All project invoices (paid and unpaid) submitted to the government to be paid using IBAS funds.

v) Paid Invoices – Project invoices that have been paid by the government with IBAS funds.

Note: Paid invoices are a subset of submitted invoices. And both are a subset of Earned Actuals. The top line will be earned actuals, second line will be submitted invoices, and third line will be paid invoices. See Figure 1 for an example.

Figure 1: Monthly Financial Chart Example

b) Project Manager Review (PMR). Twice a year (generally in March and September), there will be a PMR which will require a Government POC to travel. The objective of the PMR is for each Project Manager to present their project’s status and achievements to the IBAS Program Team. A PMR template will be provided with the PMR announcement, including time and date, and will be sent via e‐mail.

c) Site Visit and/or Kickoff Meeting: Manufacturer will host a site visit for members of the IBAS

Program and other Government customers and interested agencies.

d) Closeout Report – The report will provide a summary of the project including lessons learned and success stories to be used by DASD(MIBP). A template for this report will be sent by e‐ mail during the last phase of the project.

e) Grant Financial Reporting – Federal Financial Report (SF 425): Annual and Final Reports.

Reporting period end dates fall on the end of the calendar year for annual reports (12/31) and the end date of the grant project or period for the final report. Annual reports are due no later than 30 days after the reporting period end date, and the final report is due no later than 90 days after the end date of the grant.

All Grant Financial Reporting shall be submitted to the Grant Administration Office. Copies of the forms and instructions may be found on the internet at:

http://www.aro.army.mil/forms/forms2.htm

The Recipient shall make distribution of the Annual and Final (SF425) Reports as follows:

‐ Grant Manager – 1 original plus 1 copy;

‐ Agreement Administration Office – 1 copy

Note: The SF 425 is a single form that consolidates and replaces the Federal Cash Transaction Report (FACTOR or SF272/SF 272A) and the Financial Status Report (FSR or SF269/SF 269A).

f) Federal Funding Accountability And Transparency Act (FFATA) Reporting for grants

i) Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation.

(a) Reporting of first‐tier subawards

(1) Applicability. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph d. of this award term, you must report each action that obligates $25,000 or more in Federal funds that does not include Recovery funds (as defined in section 1512(a)(2) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111‐5) for a subaward to an entity (see definitions in paragraph e of this award term).

(2) Where and when to report.

(i) You must report each obligating action described in paragraph a.1. of this award term to www.fsrs.gov.

(ii) For subaward information, report no later than the end of the month following the month in which the obligation was made. (For example, if the obligation was made on November 7, 2010, the obligation must be reported by no later than December 31, 2010.)

(3) What to report. You must report the information about each obligating action that the submission instructions posted at www.fsrs.gov specify.

(b) Reporting Total Compensation of Recipient Executives

(1) Applicability and what to report. You must report total compensation for each of your five most highly compensated executives for the preceding completed fiscal year, if –

(i) The total Federal funding authorized to date under this award is $25,000 or more;

(ii) In the preceding fiscal year, you received—(a) 80 percent or more of your annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR

170.320 (and subawards); and (b) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and

(iii) The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.)

(2) Where and when to report. You must report executive total compensation described in paragraph (b)(1) of this award term:

(i) As part of your registration profile at www.sam.gov.

(ii) By the end of the month

(c) Reporting of Total Compensation of Sub‐recipient Executives

(1) Applicability and what to report. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph (d) of this award term, for each first‐tier sub‐recipient under this award, you shall report the names and total compensation of each of the sub‐recipient’s five most highly compensated executives for the sub‐recipient’s preceding completed fiscal year, if –

(i) In the sub‐recipient's preceding fiscal year, the sub‐recipient received –

(a) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and (b) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts), and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act (and subawards); and

(ii) The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at: http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm.

(2) Where and when to report. You must report sub‐recipient executive total compensation described in paragraph C.1. of this award term:

(i) To the Recipient

(ii) By the end of the month following the month during which you make the subaward. For example, if a subaward is obligated on any date during the month of October of a given year (i.e., between October 1 and 31), you must report any required compensation information of the sub‐recipient by November 30 of that year.

(d) Exemptions

(1) If, in the previous tax year, you had gross income, from all sources, under $300,000, you are exempt from the requirements to report:

(i) Subawards, and

(ii) The total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of any sub‐recipient.

(e) Definitions. For purposes of this award term:

(1) Entity means all of the following, as defined in 2 CFR part 25:

(i) A Governmental organization, which is a State, local government, or Indian tribe;

(ii) A foreign public entity;

(iii) A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization;

(iv) A domestic or foreign for‐profit organization;

(v) A Federal agency, but only as a sub‐recipient under an award or subaward to a non‐Federal entity.

(2) Executive means officers, managing partners, or any other employees in management positions.

(3) Subaward:

(i) This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the performance of any portion of the substantive project or program for which you received this award and that you as the Recipient award to an eligible sub‐recipient.

(ii) The term does not include your procurement of property and services needed to carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see Sec. ‐‐.210 of the attachment to OMB Circular A‐133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non‐Profit Organizations”).

(iii) A sub‐award may be provided through any legal agreement, including an agreement that you or a sub‐recipient considers a contract.

(4) Sub‐recipient means an entity that:

(i) Receives a subaward from you (the Recipient) under this award; and

(ii) Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds provided by the subaward.

(5) Total compensation means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executive during the Recipient’s or sub‐recipient’s preceding fiscal year and includes the following (for more information see 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2)):

(i) Salary and bonus

(ii) Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights. Use the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting

Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004) (FAS 123R), Shared Based Payments. iii.

Earnings for services under nonequity incentive plans. This does not include group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of executives, and are available generally to all salaried employees.

(iii) Earnings for services under non‐equity incentive plans. This does not include group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of executives, and are available generally to all salaried employees.

(iv) Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of defined benefit and actuarial pension plans.

(v) Above‐market earnings on deferred compensation which is not tax‐qualified.

(vi) Other compensation, if the aggregate value of all such other compensation (e.g.

severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or property) for the executive exceeds $10,000.

VIII Contracting and Agency Points of Contact

1) Grant Officer ‐ A responder may request clarification in writing from the Contracting Office for any requirement that is unclear by sending an e‐mail to the Contracting Points of Contact listed below:

Adam Geneva, Contracting Specialist, adam.m.geneva.civ@mail.mil, 309‐782‐3505

David Burke, Contracting Officer, david.j.burke45.civ@mail.mil, 309‐782‐7532

Any requests for clarification must be received no later than seven (7) business days prior to the close of the White Paper or Proposal in order to ensure a timely response is received.

Clarifications may be posted on the announcement website to benefit all interested responders.

Interested responders are encouraged to periodically check the website during the response period for clarifications.

2) IBAS Program Administrative Agency

Eric Hoover, eric.d.hoover2.civ@mail.mil. 309‐782‐1077

Danielle Zabloudil, Danielle.l.zabloudil.civ@mail.mil, 309‐782‐2115

Sara Larson, sara.m.larson6.civ@mail.mil, 309‐782‐4743

IX Other Information

1) Additional information regarding DASD(MIBP) office can be found at:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mibp/

2) This announcement is for a one‐time initiative.

3) The Government will be utilizing non‐government personnel under this FOA. The role of these non‐government personnel is to function as technical advisors to the Government reviewers.

These non‐Government personnel will have access to the information submitted in response to the FOA, and will provide technical expertise and/or advice as required. All non‐government personnel have Non‐Disclosure Agreements on file with the Government.