Final_2012-11-07_CIDAS_Industry_Day_Slides.pdf

Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense

Joint Project Manager Protection

Contamination Indicator Decontamination Assurance System

(CIDAS)

Pre-Solicitation Conference

8 November 2012

Kelly Conerly CIDAS Product Manager Kelly.Y.Conerly@navy.mil 540-653-6062

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Agenda

0900-0905 Welcome and Introductions

0905-0915 Agenda/Ground Rules

0915-0930 CIDAS Overview

0930-1000 Systems Engineering Overview

1000-1015 Test & Evaluation Overview

1015-1030 Logistics Overview

1030-1115 Service Concept of Operations

1115-1200 Contracting Overview

1200-1300 Lunch

1300-1400 Brief responses to questions

1400-1700 One-on-One sessions

Disclaimer

• Information Purposes Only

– All information provided prior to release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) is considered to be non-binding.

– Comments provided by Industry will be considered and included in the final RFP at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

– The Government is bound only by the information contained in the final RFP and its amendments.

Ground Rules

• No sidebars

• Turn all phones and electronic devices off or set to vibrate

– Take calls into the lobby

• Questions, Comments, and Answers will be posted Online.

Some Questions will be addressed during Q&A, after lunch.

– Questions highly encouraged

– Write questions/comments on cards provided (Identify if proprietary)

– All non-proprietary questions/comments received prior to lunch will be addressed at the end of the day, if possible

• Sign-up for one-on-one discussions at the registration table

– First come, first served

– Limited to 15 minutes

– Do not bring marketing materials as we cannot accept them

Facilities

• Restrooms

• Exits

• Lunch

• Location for one-on-one meetings

– Starting at 1400 hours in Bldg E3330, Room 229

– Escort will be provided

JPEO-CBD/JPM P Overview

Mr. Victor Murphy

Assistant Joint Project Manager

External Operations

JPEO-CBD Organization Chart

JPM P Organization Chart

Joint Project Manager William Hartzell

Deputy Joint Project Manager

Anthony Nicoletti

JECP

Product Manager

Mike Boruch

CHRP

Product Manager

Kristen Sullivan

UIPE

Product Manager

Ruzena Rok

CBPS

Product Manager

Gregg Buehler

JSEW/GPD

Erica Howell

CPFH

Product Manager

Brian Rainer

JSAM Apache Product Manager

Don Kilduff

JSAM JSF

Product Manager

Ryan Adams

JSAM RW

Product Manager

Jeremy Scott

JSGPM

Product Manager

Bill Fritch

Product Director Sustainment

Danielle Fleming

JSAM FW

Product Manager

Don Cline

CIDAS

Kelly Conerly

Business Manager Gerald Jones

Test & Evaluation Jeffrey Hofmann

Systems Engineer Chris Rok

Life Cycle Manager Deb Motz

USMC

USA

USN

USAF

Stafford Dahlgren

Natick

ECBC

Philadelphia

Leads Functional

Current Acquisition Stacey Shepherd

Managers Product

Assistant Joint Project Manager

External Operations Vic Murphy

Chief of Staff Debbie Singleton

CPS BKFT

Chip Warder

JPM P Overview

• Responsible for Cost, Schedule, Performance, and total life-cycle management of Protection, Respirators, Hazard Mitigation, and Sustainment commodities

• The key to our success is collaboration between Government and Industry to deliver the right operational capability at the right time to our Warfighters worldwide

CIDAS Overview

Ms. Kelly Conerly

CIDAS Product Manager

Program Objectives

• Minimum performance: visibly indicate the presence and location of traditional and non-traditional Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) contamination

– Shall be applied to potentially contaminated surfaces such as tactical vehicles, aircraft, ships, crew-served weapons, and individual/personnel weapons

– Shall be applied during pre- and post- decontamination operations

• Desired performance: visibly indicate the presence and location of toxic industrial materials, biological warfare agents, and radioactive contamination.

Family of Systems

Mid Scale

Small Scale Large Scale

Indicator Hand held Applicator < 15 lbs

Transportable Applicator < 196 lbs

Man-portable

<42 lbs

For the Technology Development Contract, the Government is only requesting the Mid scale system configuration.

Mid Scale System TD Phase Contract

• Mid Scale System will be comprised of:

– Indicator(s) capable of indicating the presence and location of CWA contamination

– Man-portable applicator capable of:

• Applying indicator(s)

• Covering 300 square feet of surface (single application)

• Operating continuously for a minimum of one hour

• Weighing less than 42 lbs (full of consumables)

Additional applicator sizes (Small and Large) may be addressed in future contracts/acquisition phases

Goals

• Single indicator to satisfy all user-defined requirements

• Minimal logistics footprint

– Extendable shelf life

– No restrictions on storage conditions

• Easily used by Warfighters in Individual Protective Equipment (IPE)

• Modularity and commonality of components

Strategy

• Technology Development (TD) phase contract for Competitive Prototyping (CP)

• Draft RFP posted 5 Oct 2012

• Full and open competition

• Up to two awards for Mid Scale systems

• Future Effort: Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) and Production & Deployment (P&D) phase contract

– Base period for EMD

– Option 1 for Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

– Option 2 for Full-Rate Production (FRP)

Program Schedule

17 17

Technical Approach

TD

• Competitive Prototyping testing

• Joint Independent Logistics self- Assessment

• Manufacturing and Technology Readiness Assessments (MRA &

TRA)

• Technical and Preliminary Design Reviews

• Mature indicator technology and applicators, finalize designs

• Conduct Developmental Testing (DT) and Early Operational Assessment

• Support Joint Independent Logistics Assessment

(JILA)

EMD

MS B

• Implement Performance Based Logistics (if applicable)

• Achieve Full Operational Capability

O&S

• Conduct Production Qualification Testing and Multi- Service Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E)

• Provision

• Validate Technical Manuals (TM)

• Develop Logistics Maintenance Information

• Hold Physical Configuration Audit

P&D

MS C

LRIP

FRP

TD Contract EMD Contract Option 1 Option 2

Systems Engineering Overview

Amanda Yocum

Draft Performance Specification (PSPEC) Overview

• Provides the requirements and verification methods necessary to satisfy the CIDAS mission

• Requirements derived from User Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and additional attributes

– Minimal acceptable performance level

– {Desired performance level}

• Requirements support Warfighters’ Detailed Equipment Decontamination (DED) Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs)

• Items in green will be tested during the Technology Development (TD) Phase, as part of Competitive Prototyping

(CP)

The CIDAS PSPEC may be updated for the next CIDAS contract and acquisition phase

Draft PSPEC Requirements

KPP 1

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator shall be capable of indicating the presence and location of:

Nerve-G agents to levels greater than or equal to 16.7 mg/m

Nerve-V agents to levels greater than or equal to 0.78 mg/m

Blister-H agents to levels greater than or equal to 100 mg/m

CIDAS indicator shall be capable of indicating the presence and location of:

Nerve-G agents to levels greater than or equal to 10.0 mg/m

Nerve-V agents to levels greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/m

Blister-H agents to levels greater than or equal to 15 mg/m

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator shall be capable of indicating the presence and location of Non-traditional agents at levels equal to or above safe acceptable levels as identified by the US Army Public Health Command

Mandatory Responsiveness Requirement: Offeror shall provide test reports and data that show the proposed system has been tested against at least one Chemical Surety Material as defined by

Army Regulation 50-6, Chemical Surety (July 2008).

KPP 1

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator shall be capable of indicating the presence and locations of radioactive contamination at levels equal to or above 0.33 centiGray/hour (0.33 RAD/hour)

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator should be capable of indicating the presence and location of Toxic Industrial Materials at levels equal to or above safe acceptable levels as identified by the APHC.

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator should be capable of indicating the presence and location of bacterial endospores at levels equal to or greater than 100 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/m

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator should be capable of indicating the presence and location of vegetative bacteria at levels equal to or greater than 10 CFU/m

Indication Levels

CIDAS indicator should be capable of indicating the presence and location of viruses at levels equal to or greater than 10 Plaque Forming Units (PFU)/m

KPP 2

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

Equipment Compatibility

Post application, CIDAS indicator shall not cause material degradation other than that which is allowable in service platforms’ (e.g. vehicles, ships) specifications and facilities to complete primary mission functions.

Post application, CIDAS indicator shall not cause material degradation other than that which is allowable in aircraft specifications to complete primary mission functions.

No degradation.

•The PSPEC identifies a “Materials Common to Hardened Military Equipment” list as Appendix B.

•This slide presentation identifies a “Materials Compatibility – Potential Materials List” in the Test and Evaluation (T&E) overview.

KPP 3

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

Operational Availability

The CIDAS applicator shall have an Ao of greater than or equal to 0.90.

Ao will be based on the formula:

Ao = Operation Uptime / (Operation Uptime + Operation Downtime).

Uptime is defined as applicator being available for immediate use to perform the designated mission.

Downtime is defined as applicator not being available due to Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) repair, maintenance repair, and/or waiting for repair parts.

The CIDAS applicator shall have an Ao of greater than or equal to 0.95.

Ao will be based on the formula:

Ao = Operation Uptime / (Operation Uptime + Operation Downtime).

Uptime is defined as applicator being available for immediate use to perform the designated mission.

Downtime is defined as applicator not being available due to PMCS repair, maintenance repair, and waiting for repair parts.

KPP 4

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

IPE

Compatibility

CIDAS indicator shall not degrade IPE to a level of unacceptable risk during normal decontamination operations in less than 12 hours.

CIDAS indicator shall not degrade IPE to a level of unacceptable risk during normal decontamination operations in less than 24 hours.

Fielded IPE to include but not be limited to:

Suits Masks Boots Gloves JSLIST JSGPM AFS 7-mil Glove JPACE M40 BVO 14-mil Glove JC3 M53 GVO 25-mil Glove AP-PPE JSAM MULOs JB2GU TAP Apron MCU-2P

Associated Second Skins C2A1 General purpose filter

KPP 5

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

False Positives

In the absence of contamination, the CIDAS indicator shall not indicate the presence and location of contamination in the presence of X, Y, Z.

•A Top 10 list to be included in PSPEC supporting the next CIDAS contract and acquisition phase.

Key System Attribute (KSA)

KSA ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective)

Mission

Reliability

The CIDAS applicator shall have a mission reliability of greater than or equal to 0.90 with 80% confidence.

The CIDAS applicator shall have a mission reliability of greater than or equal to 0.95 with 80% confidence.

Mission

Reliability

The CIDAS applicator shall have a Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure (MTBOMF) greater than or equal to x hours.

The CIDAS applicator shall have a MTBOMF greater than or equal to x hours.

Ownership

Cost

The CIDAS applicator shall have a minimum twenty (20) year service life from procurement through operation to disposal.

Additional Attributes

Size Coverage

Area Power Source

Weight

PMCS

Maintenance Hours

T O T O T O T O

Small Scale

150 ft2 300 ft2 X hrs

X hrs

< 15 lbs X lbs X hrs X hrs

Mid Scale

300 ft2 600 ft2 1 hrs 2 hrs < 42 lbs X lbs X hrs X hrs

Large Scale

600 ft2 1200 ft2 X hrs

X hrs

< 196 lbs X lbs X hrs X hrs

The CIDAS will provide a Family of Systems capability.

The TD acquisition phase contract focuses on the Mid Scale Applicator.

Additional Attributes

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold) PERFORMANCE STANDARD (Objective)

Visibility

The CIDAS indication response shall be visible by individuals of all military occupational specialties performing decontamination operations in day battlespace conditions while wearing full IPE IAW DED Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) (FM 3-11.5) on standard military equipment.

The CIDAS indication response shall be visible by individuals of all military occupational specialties performing decontamination operations in night battlespace conditions while wearing full IPE IAW DED TTPs (FM 3-11.5) on standard military equipment.

Visibility

The CIDAS indication response shall be visible on standard military equipment background colors as defined in FED-STD- 595C.

Indication Response Time

& Duration

The CIDAS indication response shall be within five minutes of application.

The CIDAS indication response shall be within one minute of application.

Indication Response Time

& Duration

The CIDAS indication response duration shall be five minutes following initial indication response.

The CIDAS indication response duration shall be 10 minutes following initial indication response.

Additional Attributes

ELEMENT

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Threshold)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD

(Objective) Indication Response

Time & Duration

The CIDAS indicator shall adhere to vertical surfaces to achieve the required response time and duration.

Indication on soiled equipment

The CIDAS indicator shall not indicate False Positives or False Negatives in the presence of Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POLs) and/or field grime.

Indicator Shelf Life

The CIDAS indicator shall have an effective storage shelf life of 5 years under standard warehouse or unit storage conditions.

The CIDAS indicator shall have an effective storage shelf life of 10 years under standard warehouse or unit storage conditions.

Pot Life CIDAS indicator shall remain effective for 6 hours after preparation for use.

CIDAS indicator shall remain effective for 12 hours after preparation for use.

Pot Life

The CIDAS shall have a confidence check available to determine indicator effectiveness at any time after preparation for use.

30 30

SE Strategy Overview

TD

•System Requirements Review •System Functional Review •Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) •Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

(MRA)

•Preliminary Design Review

•Preliminary Design Review (potential)

•TRA

•MRA

•Critical Design Review •System Verification Review •Functional Configuration Audit •Production Readiness Review •Configuration Management (CM)

•CM

•Collect and assess user feedback, failure and discrepancy reports •Modify and upgrade fielded systems •Provide input for additional increments

O&S

•TRA

•MRA

•Physical Configuration Audit

•CM

LRIP

FRP

Government and Contractor will align SE efforts through joint participation in an integrated product team in the next contract and acquisition phase

Configuration Management

• Current Statement of Work:

– The Government shall have unlimited rights to all data generated under this contract unless specifically negotiated otherwise.

– Test data related to the testing of a contractor's prototype system will be provided to the Contractor as Government Furnished Information.

• Government Expectations:

TD Phase •Existing CM Plan(s) from Prime and Sub Contractors

•Configuration Identification for all critical elements of delivered system, substantial to support generated test data

EMD Phase •Maintained, documented, and Government approved CM processes

•Configuration Identification •Configuration Control and Change Management •Configuration Status Accounting System •Configuration Audits

• Interface documentation •CM Plan(s) •Engineering Drawings and Technical Data

Environmental Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) Assessment

TD Phase •National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

•Material Safety Data Sheets •Safety Assessment Report

The Government will conduct an ESOH assessment to support TD acquisition phase CP testing and a MS B decision

EMD Phase •Safety Assessment Report •Corrosion Prevention & Control Plan •Hazardous Materials Management Plan (MIL-STD 662E)

•Documented System Safety Program

(MIL-STD 882E)

Government Expectations:

In the EMD Phase, the Government will:

•Ensure NEPA Compliance •Develop and implement System Safety Management Plan •Ensure Human Systems Integration •Complete a Health Hazard Assessment (HHA) •Conduct a Human Use Committee Review

TD Phase Technical Reviews

• System Requirements Review (SRR)/System Functional Review

(SFR)

• Established functional baseline & specification correlated to emerging Capability Development Document (CDD)

• Technical risk assessment of system performance/design

• Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

• Established allocated baseline, requirements trade studies, integration risks, Logistics/Safety Assessments

• Risk assessment for EMD entry

Government only technical reviews

Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Assessments

• Technology Readiness Assessments (TRA)

– Will assess the maturity and associated risk of technology’s ability to satisfy the CIDAS performance requirements (see DoD TRA Deskbook for guidance)

• Manufacturing Readiness Assessments (MRA)

– Will assess the Contractor’s manufacturing capability maturity, future development plans, and associated risk (see DoD MRL Deskbook for guidance)

– Will require contractor support and documentation

• Each will

– Be conducted by an independent assessment agency

– Be conducted prior to each Milestone Decision

For Milestone B the Contractor will be required to obtain TRL 6 and MRL 6.

Technologies and Manufacturing Processes will be matured to support fielding.

Test & Evaluation Overview

Julie Fithian

Through a series of test phases, minimize programmatic risk by verifying and validating performance criteria to ensure technology maturity, effectiveness, and suitability.

CIDAS Test and Evaluation Strategy

Acquisition Phase Test Phase

Technology Development Competitive Prototyping

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

Developmental Test, Early Operational Assessment (EOA)

Production & Deployment Production Qualification Test, Multi-Service Operational Test

& Evaluation (MOT&E)

37 37

Test Strategy Overview

TD

• CP test events focused on prioritized requirements and demonstrating technology readiness level 6

(TRL)

•Production Lot Testing

•Surveillance Testing

•Additional PQT (as required)

•Future Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) if required

O&S

LRIP

FRP

• Indication Level Testing (w/relevant environments)

• Vertical Adhesion

• Accelerated Shelf-Life

• Interference Testing

• Decontaminant

Interoperability and Compatibility

• Materials, IPE, Detector Compatibility

• Packaging and Simulated Environments

• RAM/Natural Environments

• E3/HEMP

• Supportability Demonstration

• Early Operational Demonstration

• MOT&E

• Product

Qualification Test

(PQT)

3QFY13 – 2QF14 (May 2013 – March 2014)

• Subject prototype systems to the following test events:

– Indication Level Testing (with applicator)

– Pot Life

– Material Compatibility

– Human Factors

– IPE Compatibility

– Accelerated Shelf Life (Potential)

TD Phase Competitive Prototyping Overview

• Purpose: To evaluate efficacy of system’s ability to identify presence of CWAs under both ambient and high/low temperature and humidity.

• Method: Liquid application of CWA to coupon surface followed by application of indicator(s) per manufacturer instructions using vendor applicator.

• Agent/Challenge Levels:

– HD: 100 mg/m2 up to 10 g/m2; VX: 0.78 mg/m2 up to 10 g/m2; GD: 16.7 mg/m2 up to 10 g/m2

• Measurements:

– Identification via visual indication in the presence of CWAs. Additional data will be collected to support Indicator Response and Duration Time.

– Potential Materials

• CARC MIL-DTL-64159 (Aqueous)-Coated Aluminum

• Non-Skid (MIL-PRF-24667 Type I, Composition G)- Coated Aluminum

• Silicone Rubber (A-A-59588A, Class 3A, Grade 30)

• GE Lexan®

• 17-4 pH Stainless Steel

• Evaluation Criteria:

– Systems able to meet indication requirements (HD: 100 mg/m2; VX: 0.78 mg/m2;

GD: 16.7 mg/m2) in the presence of agents. Indicator response time able to meet time and duration requirements (response within 5 min and duration of 5 min).

Indication Level Testing

• Purpose: Determine whether the indicator(s) meets minimum pot life requirements after being prepared for use.

• Method: TOP 8-2-061, 6 hour test

• Agent/Challenge Levels:

– HD: 100 mg/m2 up to 10 g/m2; VX: 0.78 mg/m2 up to 10 g/m2; GD: 16.7 mg/m2 up to 10 g/m2

• Measurements:

– Evaluate degradation to indicator baseline performance.

– Additional data will be collected to support Indicator Response and Duration Time.

– Potential Materials

• CARC MIL-DTL-64159 (Aqueous)-Coated Aluminum

• Non-Skid (MIL-PRF-24667 Type I, Composition G)- Coated Aluminum

• Silicone Rubber (A-A-59588A, Class 3A, Grade 30)

• GE Lexan®

• 17-4 pH Stainless Steel

• Evaluation Criteria:

– Systems able to meet indication requirements in the presence of agents 6 hrs after being prepared for use. Indicator response time able to meet time and duration requirements (response within 5 minutes and duration of 5 minutes).

Pot Life Testing

• Purpose: Determine impact of the system on material integrity (i.e., ability of material to perform its intended function).

• Methods:

– ASTM D1003- Standard Test Method for Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastics

– ASTM G31-Standard Practice for Laboratory Immersion Corrosion Testing of Metals

– ASTM D471-Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Effect of Liquids

– ASTM D2240-Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness

– ASTM D543-Standard Practices for Evaluating the Resistance of Plastics to Chemical Reagents

– ASTM D3363-Standard Test Method for Film Hardness by Pencil Test

• Measurements:

– Material degradation after exposure to indicator IAW applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (see Potential Materials List Slide).

• Evaluation Criteria:

– Systems does not negatively affect ability of material to perform intended function by impacting material integrity.

Material Compatibility

Material Compatibility – Potential Materials List

Material Testing

CARC (water dispersible) MIL-DTL-64159 ASTM D3363

CARC (single component solvent based) MIL-DTL-53039 ASTM D3363

Ship topcoat, MIL-PRF-24635, silicon alkyd color 26270, Type II, class II, grade B ASTM D3363

Low Infrared Paint, MIL-E-24635B ASTM D3363

MIL-PRF-24667 Type I non-skid ASTM D3363

MIL-PRF-24667 Type XI non-skid ASTM D3363

Buna-N-Rubber, MIL-R-15624, class 3

ASTM D471,

ASTM D2240

Tire Rubber, Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR)

ASTM D471,

ASTM D2240

Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer Rubber (EPDM) MIL-R-30695, Polymer

ASTM D471,

ASTM D2240

Silicone Rubber (A-A-59588A, Class 3A, Grade 30)

ASTM D471,

ASTM D2240

AISI 4140, steel alloy ASTM G31

AISI 1020, carbon steel ASTM G31

Brass, 1/8 – 1/4 C26000 ASTM G31

GE Lexan®, polycarbonate polymer

ASTM D543,

ASTM D2240,

ASTM D1003

• Purpose: Determine the systems suitability, supportability, and safety in an operationally representative environment.

• Methods:

– Questionnaires will be used to capture subjective feedback from participants on system suitability and safety.

– Data obtained on system set-up, power source, and resupply will be used to evaluate supportability.

– Participants will be outfitted in Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP 4).

• MOPP 4 consists of Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST), Joint Block 2 Glove Upgrade (JB2GU), M50 protective mask, and a pair of Alternative Footwear Solutions (AFS).

– Simulate immediate/operational indication of “contaminated” panels (vertical coated panel with a 4 ft2 surface area [2 feet by 2 feet]) “contaminated” with a CWA simulant.

• Evaluation Criteria:

– Systems able to meet suitability, supportability, and safety requirements in an operationally representative environment.

Human Factors

• Purpose: Determine whether the system degrades the protective capability of IPE.

• Method: TOP 8-2-501

– Liquid Challenge/Vapor Penetration (L/V), Convective flow method (air-permeable and semi-permeable), Static diffusion (impermeable materials), Low Volatility Agent Permeation (VX).

• Agent/Challenge Levels:

– HD, VX, GD: 10 g/m2

• Measurements:

– Evaluation of whether significant degradation is observed post indicator exposure.

– Potential Materials

• JSLIST

• JB2GU

• Polyurethane (M50 lens type material)

• Black Vinyl Overboot

• Evaluation Criteria:

– The system shall not degrade relevant IPE materials to a level of unacceptable risk (as defined by their individual system PSPECs) during a 12 hour period.

IPE Compatibility

Accelerated Shelf Life

• Purpose: To estimate the shelf life of the indicator using an accelerated aging process (e.g., storage at high temperature).

• Method: MIL-STD-810G, Method 501.5, Procedure I, Climatic Category A1

• Measurements:

– Chemical – Indication in presence of CWAs. Additional information regarding pot life may be collected at sampling intervals.

– Physical Properties – Examples: Color changes of indicator, viscosity, etc.

– Post Storage Tests – See Indication Level (ambient only) and Pot Life Testing Slides.

– Potential Materials—1 gallon samples will be pulled periodically throughout testing. Packaging should allow for 1 gallon samples to be pulled at various time points without compromising the integrity and/or quality of the entire quantity of the indicator.

• Discussion Point: Available sample quantities.

• Evaluation Criteria: System indication process meets PSPEC requirements for shelf life (5 year shelf life). System meets PSPEC requirements for indication level testing and pot life.

Accelerated Shelf Life not currently addressed in draft RFP. Final RFP will reflect final decision regarding this test and any requested materials.

Logistics Overview

Mr. Lynn D. Hintze

47 47

Integrated Product Support Contract Deliverables

TD

Government Integrated Product Support Activities

• Supportability Analysis

- FMECA

- MTA

- MAC

- LORA

• Maintenance Plan

• Logistics

Demonstration Plan

• New Equipment

Training Plan

• Technical Manual

Plan

Government Integrated

Product Support Activities

O&S •Provisioning

• Validated

Technical Manual

• Validated New

Equipment Training Package

•Logistics Maintenance Information

P&D

MS C

LRIP

FRP

Sustainment Integrated Product Team Oversight.

Note: List of activities in each phase is not comprehensive.

US Army Concept of Operations

Mr. Robin Simino

US Air Force Concept of Operations

Mr. Joe Balcer

Contracting Overview

Jean Greenwood

Contract Specialist

U.S. Army Contracting Command – Natick(ACC-Natick)

• W911QY-13-R-0001 is a DRAFT RFP only and is available for comment until 15 November 2012 on the Federal Business Opportunities website www.FBO.gov.

• Documents comprising the Draft RFP are:

Draft Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 Three (3) Attachments o Price Proposal o Test Report Crosswalk o Draft PSPEC

Three (3) Exhibits o CDRL for Technical Manuals; System Maintenance & Operation o CDRL for Training Materials; Setup/mixing/storage/safety o CDRL for Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

DRAFT Solicitation: W911QY-13-R-0001

The acquisition strategy and RFP details for the CIDAS described today are subject to change.

http://www.fbo.gov/

• Full and Open Competition

• Best Value to the Government

• This is not a commercial items solicitation (solicited under FAR 15, not FAR 12) but commercial items can be proposed.

• Multiple contract awards (Two are anticipated) o The Government reserves the right to make a single award.

Acquisition Strategy Summary

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001

If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Government reserves the right to award to an Offeror whose proposal is neither the lowest price nor most highly rated, but which is determined to provide the best overall value to the Government.

• Section A – Important Program Information

– NAICS Code – 325998; Small Business Standard: 500 employees

– Award subject to availability of funds

• Section B – Supplied or Services and Prices

– ATTACHMENT J1 WILL BE PRICED IN LIEU OF SECTION B

– Upon award, the appropriate combination of CLINs will be exercised.

– CDRLs not separately priced.

• Section C – Statement of Work

• Section D, E, F & G – Delivery, Inspection, Acceptance, Administration Data

• Section I & K – Clauses and Representations

– Fill in clauses must be filled out, signed and included in your proposal

• Section J – List of Attachment and Exhibits

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001

Draft RFP Review – Section by Section

• Section L - Written Proposal Instructions

- Pages will be counted and pages in excess of the requirements will be removed and will not be evaluated

- In event of discrepancies, hard copy volume takes precedence over CD version.

-All volumes are due on the RFP closing date at the specified time and location.

NO EXCEPTIONS

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001

Responsiveness Assessment:

• Evaluated immediately after receipt of proposals by Government Contracting Officer and Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson

• Nonresponsive Offerors will be notified and proposals will not be evaluated by SSEB

VOLUME Page Limitation # of Hard Copies

Volume I – Administrative

Section 1 - Executive Summary and

Statement of Compliance

Section 2 – Signed SF33 and SF 30s

(amendments), if any.

Section 3 - Representation and

Certification Documents/Fill-in clauses

Section 4 – SETA Contractor

Nondisclosure Agreements

Section 1 limited to 3 pages.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 – no page limit.

2 hard copies

Volume II - Technical

Section 1 - System Performance/ Test

Report Crosswalk (Attachment 2)

Section 2 - System Design/Concept of Use

Section 3 – Test Data/Reports

Sections 1 and 2 limited to 20 pages each.

Section 3 – no page limit.

5 hard copies

Volume III – Past Performance Limited to 5 pages. 2 hard copies

Volume IV – Price (Attachment 1) Limited to 3 pages. 2 hard copies

2 CDs must be submitted containing the entire proposal (see paragraph L2.2.3)

• Section M – Evaluation Criteria

Technical > Past Performance > Price

- Factor 1. Technical. All subfactor 1 is more important than subfactor 2.

• Subfactor 1: System Performance

• Subfactor 2: System Design and Concept of Use

- Factor 2. Past Performance. Both subfactors are of equal value and will be rolled up into a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

• Subfactor 1: Relevance

• Subfactor 2: Performance Confidence Assessment

- Factor 3. Price. Fairness and reasonableness via Narrative assessment.

Factor 1 - Technical: ACCEPTABLE Factor 2 - Past Performance: SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Factor 3 – Price: FAIR and REASONABLE

MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS FOR AWARD

• Evaluation for Factors based on consideration of the:

– STANDARD – the metric established by the Government to obtain an ACCEPTABLE/ GREEN Rating.

– ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY – describes HOW the Government will assess the offeror’s proposal in meeting or exceeding the STANDARD.

Factor 1 uses Table 1 “Combined Technical/Risk Ratings”

Factor 2 uses Table 2 “Past Performance Relevancy Rating” and Table 3 “Performance Confidence Assessment Rating”

Factor 3 uses a Narrative of findings for fairness and reasonableness

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 56

Adjectival Ratings for Technical Factor and Technical sub-factors

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 57

Company Information:

EXAMPLE

Nerve-V

Test Conditions: Time/Temperature/

Relative Humidity Report 1, page 75-77

Starting Challenge Report 1, page 75-77

Indicant Dwell Time 10 min

Coupon Area Report 1, page 75-77

Agent Application Method Report 1, page 75-77

Analytical Method Report 1, page 75-77

CARC (water based) MIL-DTL-64159 Report 2, page 54

CARC (solvent) MIL-DTL-53039 Report 2, page 55

AA 2014—T6, Aluminum Alloy Report 2, page 85

AISI 4140, Steel Alloy Report 2, page 85

AA 5083, Aluminum Alloy Report 2, page 86

Manganese Phosphate finish, Coating Report 2, page 87

Brass, 1/8 – 1/4 C26000 Report 2, page 88

DuPont Kevlar®, Polymer Report 2, page 89

Isophthalic Polyester Resin, glass reinforced

Nylon 6 or 6/6, Type 70G33 HRL, Polymer

Diallyl Phthalate Carbon Filled ASTM D5948 Type CF1-20, Polymer

Buna-N-Rubber, MIL-R-15624, class 3

Tire Rubber, Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR)

AISI 1020, Carbon Steel

Urethane 7000 series prepless structural adhesive system

GE Lexan®, polycarbonate polymer

Polyurethane, polymer

17-4 PH, stainless steel

Polysulfide Adhesive (type I, Class B ½), finish 12369014, Polymer

AISI 9310H, Alloy Steel

Ship topcoat, MIL-PRF-24635, silicon alkyd color 26270, Type II, class II, grade B

Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer Rubber (EPDM) MIL-R-30695, Polymer

Low Infrared Paint MIL-E-24635B, Coating

Modified Acrylic Resin (MODAR) glass reinforced, Polymer

Silicon Rubber (A-A-59588A, Class 3A, Grade 30)

MIL-PRF-24667 Type I non-skid

MIL-PRF-24667 Type XI non-skid

EXAMPLE

B. anthracis delta sterne

Test Conditions: Time/Temperature/

Relative Humidity

Starting Challenge

Indicant Dwell Time

Coupon Area

Agent Application Method

CARC (water based) MIL-DTL-64159

CARC (solvent) MIL-DTL-53039

AA 2014—T6, Aluminum Alloy

Nerve-V Blister-H

CHEMICAL AGENT TESTING

BIOLOGICAL AGENT TESTING: COUPON (IF APPLICABLE)

REFERENCE MATRIX

INSTRUCTIONS: For each applicable data point entered in the worksheet provide a reference to an included test report.

Spores: Vegetative Bacteria: Viruses:

Coupon (Efficacy):

Describe Product Application, Test Method and Extraction Method (Example: Report 1, page 75-77)

Live Agent:

Nerve-G

Coupon (Efficacy):

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d198c95d215d9c6cb5008175b7a10a7&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d198c95d215d9c6cb5008175b7a10a7&tab=core&_cview=1

• Relevance

• Performance

Confidence

Assessment

Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance Factor and sub-factors

CONTAMINATION INDICATION / RFP W911QY-13-R-0001

DECONTAMINATION ASSURANCE SYSTEM (CIDAS)

ATTACHMENT J1- PRICE PROPOSAL FORM

Include this form completed with your proposal

DESCRIPTION: The Offeror shall price their product using this form using the product configuration that most closely fits the proposed product. The product configurations below accommodate offerors who have one indicant technology that can detect both nerve and blister agents (Product Configurations 1 or 2) or who offer two indicant technologies, one for nerve agents and another for blister agents (Product Configurations 3 or 4). If the offeror has a training/simulation indicant (an inert indicant used for training purposes) that is cost effective, the offeror may propose their products using Product Configurations 2 or 4. Offerors who do not have a training/simulation indicant must propose their products using Product Configurations 1 or 3. The price proposed must include shipping and handling, as well as all other plant, labor, supplies, materials, equipment, transportation and supervision necessary to deliver the products to the locations specified in the quantities (see Note 1) specified within forty-five (45) days

After Date of Contract (ADC). All work required shall be in strict accordance with the detailed requirements of the technical provisions and specifications. All deliveries shall be F.O.B. Destination to the locations indicated in the quantities indicated.

For testing purposes, delivery is required at multiple locations for the quantities specified. Delivery Locations are as follows:

1. Indicator Efficacy Testing / Pot Life and Material Compatibility Testing: Hazardous Material Research

Center, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH

Battelle Memorial Institute (DoDAAC - W81XAG)

ATTN: Gary Stickel

1425 State Route 142

West Jefferson, Ohio 43162

2. Individual Protective Equipment Compatibility Testing - Dugway Proving Grounds, Dugway, UT

U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DoDAAC - W909NB)

Chemical Test Division, WDTC

ATTN: Herbert Davila

TEDT-DPW-CTC

Building 4564, B-Street

Dugway, UT 84022-5000

3. Accelerated Aging / Shelf Life Testing - Hazardous Material Research Center, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH

(Same as 1. above)

4. Human Factors Evaluation - Aberdeen Test Center, Aberdeen, MD

US Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) (DoDAAC - W81C5M)

ATTN: TEDT-AT-WFS/Don Craig

400 Colleran Rd., Building 358

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

All offerors must price CLINs 0001, 0006 and 0007. All offerors must price one of the product configurations.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d198c95d215d9c6cb5008175b7a10a7&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d198c95d215d9c6cb5008175b7a10a7&tab=core&_cview=1

• There are multiple options for pricing. These options allow for:

– Separate Blister/Nerve Indicants

– Combined Blister/Nerve Indicants

– Training Indicants

– Liquids, Powders, other

– Must price the applicator

• Evaluation Methodology

– Formal Source Selection procedures

– Source Selection Evaluation Board

• Support Contractors and Subject Matter Experts as non-voting advisors

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 61

• Sequence of Events

1. Issue Draft RFP (Completed 5 Oct 2012)

2. Conduct Pre-Solicitation Conference/Industry Day (8 Nov 2013)

3. Offeror questions for draft RFP received NLT 15 Nov 2012

4. Release Final RFP (~ Dec 2012)

5. Receive Written Proposals (~ Jan 2013)

6. Conduct responsive/non-responsive proposal assessment

7. SSEB Evaluate proposals and establish competitive range

8. Present findings to Source Selection Authority (SSA)

9. Notify Offerors of competitive range determination (if required)

10. Conduct negotiations (if required)

11. Revise/Reaffirm Competitive Range (if required)

12. Receive Final Proposal Revisions (if required)

13. Conduct Final Evaluation (if required)

14. Present Recommendations SSA

15. SSA Decision and contract awards (~ March 2013)

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 62

• Wrap Up

– https://www3.natick.army.mil/dfos.html

– www.fbo.gov Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001

• Email questions to jean.greenwood@us.army.mil with a courtesy copy to peter.wallace@us.army.mil.

• The deadline for questions is 15 November 2012.

• Questions will be posted to the FBO website, on a non-attribution basis, with Government answers.

• Questions deemed to be proprietary in nature may be answered directly to the entity submitting the question.

DRAFT Solicitation W911QY-13-R-0001 63 https://www3.natick.army.mil/dfos.html http://www.fbo.gov/ mailto:jean.greenwood@us.army.mil mailto:peter.wallace@us.army.mil

Lunch Break

Reminder:

Submit all questions.

Brief Responses to Questions

Closing Remarks

Acronym List

• AFS Alternative Footwear Solutions

• ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

• Ao Operational Availability

• CDR Critical Design Review

• CFU Colony Forming Unit

• CM Configuration Management

• CP Competitive Prototype

• CWA Chemical Warfare Agent

• E3 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects

• EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development

• EOA Early Operational Assessment

Acronym List (continued)

• ESOH Environmental Safety and Occupational Health

• DED Detailed Equipment Decontamination

• FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

• FMECA Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis

• FOT&E Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation

• FRP Full Rate Production

• HEMP High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse

• HHA Health Hazard Assessment

• HIS Human Systems Integration

• IAW In Accordance With

• IPE Individual Protective Equipment

• IPS Integrated Product Support

• JB2GU Joint Block 2 Glove Upgrade

• JILA Joint Independent Logistics Assessment

• JPEO-CBD Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense

• JPM P Joint Project Manager Protection

• JSLIST Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suite Technology

• KPP Key Performance Parameter

• KSA Key System Attributes

• LORA Level of Repair Analysis

• LRIP Low Rate Initial Production

• L/V Liquid Challenge/Vapor Penetration

• MAC Maintenance Allocation Chart

• MOPP Mission Oriented Protective Posture

• MOT&E Multi-service Operational Test and Evaluation

• MRA Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

• MRL Manufacturing Readiness Level

• MS Milestone

• MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

• MTBOMF Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure

• NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

• NTA Non Traditional Agent

• O&S Operations and Support

• OT Operational Testing

• P&D Production and Deployment

• PFU Plaque Forming Unit

• PMCS Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services

• POL Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants

• PQT Production Qualification Testing

• PSPEC Performance Specification

• RAM Reliability, Availability and Maintainability

• RFP Request for Proposal

• SAR Safety Assessment Report

• SE Systems Engineering

• SSA Source Selection Authority

• TD Technology Development

• TIM Toxic Industrial Material

• TM Technical Manuals

• TOP Test Operations Procedure

• TRA Technology Readiness Assessment

• TRL Technology Readiness Level

• TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

• UID Unique Item Identification