FARACP_Solicitation_DRAFT_release1.pdf

DRAFT // PREDECISIONAL

PROGRAM SOLICITATION

FOR

FUTURE ATTACK RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT (FARA)

COMPETITIVE PROTOTYPE

Solicitation Number

XXXXX-18-R-000X

Issued By:

US Army Contracting Command – Redstone

On Behalf Of:

U.S. ARMY FUTURES COMMAND

Table of Contents

1. General Information.........................................................................................Page

2. Research Opportunity Description………………………………………………..Page

3. Award Information……………………...…………………………………………..Page

4. Eligibility Information…………………….…………………………………………Page

5. Proposal Instructions…………………..………………..………………………...Page

6. Evaluation Information…………………………………………………………… Page

7. Other Information…………………………………………………………………..Page

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. Introduction

The purpose of this solicitation is to announce the Army Contracting Command’s (ACC) intent to solicit proposals for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Competitive Prototype (FARA CP) using an Other Transaction for Prototype (OTAP) in accordance with 10 United States Code (USC) 2371b.

This solicitation is unrestricted. Small businesses are encouraged to propose on all of the solicitations. The NAICS code is 336411 (i.e., Developing and producing prototypes for aircraft). Proposals submitted shall be in accordance with solicitation instructions.

1.2. Agency Name

U.S. Army Contracting Command – Redstone Arsenal (ACC-RSA), Aviation Development Directorate – Eustis (ADD-E) Contracting Division on behalf of the U.S.

Army Futures Command, Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team (FVL CFT)

2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2.1. The Government solicits proposals for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Competitive Prototype (FARA CP).

2.2. Objective. FARA CP funds a competitive prototyping effort to design, build, and test a FARA in an operationally relevant environment at a technological readiness level (TRL) 7. The results of this prototyping and test effort will support a decision to enter into a formal program of record for EMD through production as a rapid acquisition.

2.3. Background. Army Aviation must operate in highly contested/complex airspace and degraded environments against peer/near peer adversaries capable of an advanced integrated air defense system. The Army currently lacks the ability to conduct armed reconnaissance, light attack, and security with improved stand-off and lethal and non-lethal capabilities with a platform sized to hide in RADAR clutter and for the urban canyons of mega cities. To close this gap, the Army envisions an optionally manned, next generation rotorcraft with attributes of reduced cognitive workload, increased operational tempo (OPTEMPO) through ultra-reliable designs and extended maintenance free periods, and advanced teaming and autonomous capabilities.

Teamed with unmanned systems and various air launched effects, this platform will be the center piece of the integrated air defense system (IADS) breeching team to provide freedom of maneuver in a multi-domain battle. This platform is the “knife fighter” of future Army Aviation capabilities, a small form factor platform with maximized performance. Critical to this envisioned platform is a resilient digital backbone designed to allow rapid capability advancement in subsystems and software and affordable life cycle management. This purpose built aircraft will be fielded at echelons above division but other variants could be fielded across all aviation formations.

2.4. Strategy.

2.4.1. The FARA CP [comparable in size to what has been described as FVL

Capability Set (CS) 1] will be designed and developed within a streamlined acquisition approach leveraging modern tools and processes, industry innovation, and a revolutionary Government approach through the recently implemented Army strategy of Cross Functional Teams. The intent for the aircraft developed under this solicitation is to have an ‘open architecture’ on the platform to allow efficient integration of mission equipment throughout the lifecycle. However, it is anticipated that full mission capability will occur through integration efforts within Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) or an equivalent effort post-FARA CP.

2.4.2. Typical efficiencies utilized during science and technology (S&T) project execution similar to the Army’s Joint Multirole Technology Demonstration (JMR TD) program will be implemented within this effort as further explained throughout this solicitation. Furthermore, leveraging the Performance Based Acquisition approach of a Statement of Objectives (SOO), the government is providing in this solicitation the overall goal and objectives for this effort to include some minimum requirements in the areas of airworthiness/qualification, government oversight and reviews, deliverables, and system performance. This will allow industry offerors to propose efficiencies in these areas and overall approach to meeting FARA CP goals and best prepare for, and streamline, the follow on efforts to reach production and maintain affordability. Only Industry participants selected for the FARA CP program subsequent phases to complete the comprehensive systems integration and conduct full airworthiness qualification required to execute a production decision.

2.5 Approach.

2.5.1. This solicitation describes the intent to develop necessary and sufficient data to transition from a CP to EMD. The data development will occur through the design and build of competitive prototype air vehicles that address key attributes and requirements. In addition to data developed for the CP aircraft, there is also intent to develop additional data to accelerate transition to a post-CP program. It is anticipated that an Other Transaction Authority for Prototype (OTAP) will be used to establish the partnerships between FYs19-23.

2.5.2. Several incremental steps will be utilized to ensure the Government is continuing to invest appropriately. In FY19, the Government anticipates multiple (four to six) initial awards will be made based on proposed conceptual designs and approaches to obtain the FARA CP desired results (Sec.2.6.2). Industry participants will be given approximately nine months to develop preliminary designs and provide the government team with the data and insight required to make a down-selection to two companies/teams after an Initial Design and Risk Review (ID&RR). The two companies/teams that are selected will proceed to detail design, build, and test phase that includes all other necessary and supporting tasks. A Final Design & Risk Review

(FD&RR) will be executed to provide government approval to continue the effort.

Subsequent to the completion of technical drawings and subsystem testing, an Initial Preliminary Design Review (IPDR) will be executed to provide the government the required insight, data, and documentation to execute the efforts associated with a MS B and subsequent EMD phase.

Schedule Milestones Estimated Date by

Fiscal Year and Quarter Funding Instrument Awards 3Q 2019 System Requirements Review 1Q 2020 Initial Design and Risk Review approx. 9 months after award Down Selection to Two Industry Participants 3Q 2020 Final Design & Risk Review 1Q 2021 Initial Preliminary Design Review / Data Submission to Support Decision to Enter into Formal Acquisition Process

3Q 2022

Prototype First Flight 1Q 2023 Completion of Test in Operational Relevant Environment/Fly Off

4Q 2023

Transition to PoR FY24

2.6. Scope.

2.6.1. The scope of effort may include conceptual design; preliminary design;

detail design; process refinement, component, subsystem and system level qualification testing; analysis; fabrication of hardware components; integration of aircraft systems;

software coding and testing; development of systems integration labs (SILs);

modification of test facilities; preparation of test plans, reports and airworthiness substantiation and documentation; and ground and flight testing of processes, subsystems, and the aircraft.

2.6.2. The Government seeks the following results from this development effort:

• Define, design, build and test prototype aircraft that meet key performance attributes/measures and other performance thresholds as described in Supplemental Information Package (SIP): DESIGN GUIDANCE.

• Collaboration with the Government on developing cost models, physics-based engineering models and systems engineering models.

• Ground testing, flight envelope expansion and vehicle characterization testing necessary to develop data required to demonstrate the FARA CP capabilities and requirements.

• Data to support airworthiness and acquisition planning (e.g. manufacturing readiness level, supportability, suitability) for an anticipated follow-on EMD/production phase.

2.6.3. Upon successful completion of prototyping effort, the scope may include a down-select of a prototype to a program of record.

2.7. Additional Guidance.

2.7.1. Sustainment, survivability and durability are important in the overall design of the aircraft (SIP: DESIGN GUIDANCE). Liberty is provided to the proposer to offer streamlined and efficient trades in these areas, to include the effect on airworthiness qualification.

2.7.2. The FARA CP effort will include partial integration of mission systems as described in the SIP: INCREMENT STRATEGY. The air vehicle shall have provisions and interfaces for a modular open systems architecture that will allow a systems integrator to accommodate a requirements-compliant mission systems package at a future date (SIP: MOSA). The full mission systems suite will be defined and integrated post-MS B after the down select to a single solution for integration, qualification, and production.

2.7.3. The aircraft must be designed to accommodate production and supportability methods. Rapid prototyping methods may be used in order to meet the schedule constraints provided there is a low risk path to a production and supportability approach.

2.7.4. Developmental ground and flight testing (DT) to characterize vehicle behavior and expand flight envelope shall be conducted as a combined test team with both Government and Industry participant flight test personnel. After a sufficient DT period for envelope clearance and safety qualification, the competitive prototypes will be transferred to the Government with sufficient contractor logistics support (CLS) to perform Government flight testing. The intended scope of that testing is defined in Appendix 3: GOVERNMENT FLIGHT TESTING of this synopsis.

2.7.5. With the intent of timely decision making, reducing formal deliverable requirements, overall risk tracking, building a knowledge-base, and providing timely subject matter expert support, the Government team requires a collaborative approach with Industry participants that provides continuous, real-time access to technical and programmatic data developed during FARA CP.

2.7.6. Data and information access may be provided through internet accessible data storage and collaboration sites, web-based meeting technology, telephone conferences, technical interchange meetings, etc. Along with carefully prescribed deliverables, the Government anticipates accessing data (virtual design, specifications, other design artifacts) using commercially available or licensed proprietary tools for collaboration and oversight purposes to include requirements tracking, assessing technical risk and maturity, airworthiness and qualification, program management, and preparations for life cycle supportability.

2.7.7. As another means of program efficiency, both the Government and

Industry participant teams should be right-sized (lean) for the effort. The internal business practices of each company/team should be tailored for maximum agility to quickly establish subcontracts, procure vendor support and react to technical, schedule and cost risks and issues that may occur internally, with suppliers or vendors, or other unknown cause.

2.7.8. The Army will be the airworthiness authority post-MS B and will also need to provide an airworthiness release during the Government flight testing phase. A streamlined approach that relies heavily on established company practices and procedures, and includes Government participation, is encouraged. The Army desires an approach that satisfies the immediate “safety of flight” needs of the competitive prototype effort and is also responsive to the full Airworthiness Qualification Plan (AQP) that is provided in Appendix 4: AIRWORTHINESS and SIP. The flight test effort shall comply with all laws and regulations associated with flying experimental aircraft in the national airspace.

2.7.9. In order to manage Government interests, there will be multiple gates or decision points after initial proposal evaluation. FARA CP decision points are:

• System Requirements and Approach Review: Review derived requirements that are basis for the aircraft design

• Initial Design and Risk Review: Review of preliminary design of the prototype aircraft along with the assessment of associated technical, schedule and cost risk.

Entrance and exit criteria are in Appendix 2: ENTRANCE & EXIT CRITERIA.

• Final Design and Risk Review: Review of detail design of the prototype aircraft along with associated technical, schedule and cost risk. Entrance and exit criteria are in Appendix 2: ENTRANCE & EXIT CRITERIA.

• Test Readiness Reviews: Review of readiness to begin major test phases

• Initial Preliminary Design Review / Data Submission to Support Decision to Enter into Formal Acquisition Process

2.7.10. At all decision points, as listed above, the Government team will review and assess the degree to which the Industry participant is likely to obtain the FARA CP desired results. A critical component of those assessments will be the likelihood of meeting a desired aircraft performance as described in the requirements SIP: DESIGN GUIDANCE. After timely deliberation, the Government will provide instruction to continue as planned, continue with changes, or to discontinue the effort.

2.7.11. If the participant desires to alter the program plan in terms of statement of work, funding alignment (including industry participant cost share) or schedule, those desires will be presented to the Government for concurrence at periodic, recurring program management reviews. Formal changes can only be made through a letter of request to the Other Transaction administrator.

2.7.12. Decisions for early procurement (prior to ID&RR) of long lead material/items for the FARA CP are subject to Government concurrence.

2.7.13. The number of Industry participants will be reduced to two after the Initial

Design and Risk Review to maintain a competitive environment for a subsequent program of record. Decisions will be made by assessing initial design and approach data against the following criteria:

• Re-evaluation of design, technical approach, management approach or cost based on changes since proposal or more complete data set with which to evaluate. (In accordance with Evaluation Criteria/Basis of Selection section of this solicitation.)

• Likelihood of meeting key performance attributes/measures, threshold requirements or other factors that contribute to meeting the FARA CP objective.

• Credibility of analytical predictions. The range and probability of possible outcomes should be quantified. The ability to analytically bridge the gap between demonstrated and design performance for the small set of cases where the objective equipment set may not be available (i.e. Improved Turbine Engine).

• Assessment of remaining risk and feasible mitigation path.

• Overall approach to sustainment, survivability, durability, and airworthiness.

• Anticipated life-cycle affordability, including acquisition and sustainment costs.•

• Cost and schedule performance to-date.

• Degree of collaboration and data sharing (with appropriate rights) with the

Government.

Note: Some appendices are included as addition information with this solicitation (e.g.

description of deliverables). However, other documents are in a Supplemental Information Package due to the sensitivity of the information. See “INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS” on how to obtain.

3. AWARD INFORMATION

3.1. Anticipated Award Date

The anticipated award date for funding instruments is around June 2019.

3.2. Anticipated Funding for the Program

3.2.1. Anticipated funding will be split among all awards with the anticipation of completing two competitive prototyping efforts. Each participant for the initial design phase will receive approximately $XXM between FYs 19-20 with an anticipated 4-6 Industry participants. The two Industry participants selected in FY20 after IDRR for the competitive prototyping will receive a fixed funding level of $XXXM between FYs20-23.

The Period of Performance for FVL FARA CP is not anticipated to extend beyond FY23.

The funding profile is FY19 - %, FY20 – %, FY21 – %, FY22 – %, FY23 – %. It is desired that proposals address the announcement in its entirety.

3.2.2. Costs associated with paper/proposal preparation and submission are not considered allowable direct costs to any resulting award. However, these costs may be allowable for contracts as indirect costs as specified in FAR 31.205-18.

3.2.3. Any estimated funding amounts are not a promise of assured funding in that amount. Funding is uncertain and is subject to change. Changes in availability may occur as a result of Government discretion or fiscal constraints.

3.3. Type of Business Arrangement

The business arrangement is an OTAP as authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 2371b. Eligibility is open to any U.S. company; however, there are conditions for traditional defense contractors. Traditional defense contractors must either partner with a non-traditional defense contractor to a significant extent (see 4.2) or contribute at least one third of the cost of the project. In general, a non-traditional defense contractor is one who is not performing and has not performed for at least one year from the solicitation date, work for DoD that is subject to full Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) coverage as prescribed under 41 U.S.C. § 1502 and the implementing regulations. Offerors should familiarize themselves with the applicable guidance DOD Guide prior to proposal submission.

3.4. Number of Awards Anticipated

3.4.1. As presented in Section 2 above, the Government anticipates awarding between four and six funding instruments depending upon the merit of the proposals it receives and affordability of such proposals.

3.4.2. The Government reserves the right to negotiate with offerors on scope of the proposed prototyping effort.

3.5. Anticipated Period of Performance

The period of performance of FARA CP is anticipated to end September 2023.

3.6. Deliverables

3.6.1. All awards under this announcement shall require a kickoff meeting following award. All awards under this announcement shall require delivery of the following data items:

a. Baseline Data (design, life cycle cost, program management metrics)

b. Program Management Plan,

c. Bi-monthly Technical Status Reports,

d. Monthly Financial Status Updates / Bi-Monthly Financial Status Reports,

e. Long Lead Item Procurement Plan,

f. Airworthiness Substantiation Data,

g. Test, Data Collection and Analysis Plan(s) to meet AQS

h. Initial Design and Risk Report (includes System Spec) and Program Cost & Plan

Update,

i. Final Design and Risk Report (includes System Spec),

j. Initial PDR Data Package

k. Technical Reports

l. Meeting Presentations and Briefing Material,

m. Final Report.

3.6.2. Descriptions of these data items, which should be considered as minimum essential information, are included in the Appendix 5: DELIVERABLES. All awards will include a requirement to present the results of the work in a final briefing at a Government location upon completion of all technical effort.

4. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

4.1. Eligibility.

Participation is limited to U.S. Firms as Prime Contractors; however, foreign-owned entities can participate as subcontractors/recipients to U.S. prime contractors/recipient.

The U.S. prime entity retains responsibility for compliance with U.S. export controls.

Countries included in the U.S. State Department List of Countries that support Terrorism are excluded from participation. Interested entities must address export compliance of any foreign partners/sub-contractors in its cost volume.

4.2. Non-Traditional Defense Contractors

In accordance with the DoD Other Transactions Guide for Prototype Projects, it is in the DoD’s interest to tap into the research and development being accomplished by nontraditional defense contractors, and to pursue commercial solutions to defense requirements. One use of this authority is to attract nontraditional defense contractors that participate to a significant extent in the prototype project. These nontraditional defense contractors can be at the prime level, team members, subawardees, lower tier vendors, or “intra-company” business units (provided the business unit makes a significant contribution to the prototype project). Examples of what might be considered a significant contribution include, but are not limited to, supplying new key technology or products, accomplishing a significant amount of the effort, or in some other way causing a material reduction in the cost or schedule or increase in the performance.

4.3 System for Award Management (SAM).

Offerors are required to register in the SAM database https://www.sam.gov prior to award and continue to maintain an active registration with current information throughout the period of any Federal award.

5. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

5.1. Proposal Submission Process

5.1.1. Offerors may submit one or more proposals addressing any aspect of the solicitation, and each proposal will be evaluated independently. The US Government requires two (2) hardcopy responses and two (2) electronic copies for each proposal.

5.1.2. Proposal Format:

Proposals shall consist of two volumes:

Volume 1 - Technical Proposal Volume 2 – Cost/Price Proposal

For each volume, the following format shall apply:

Paper Size – 8.5-by-11-inch paper

Margins – One-inch margins

Spacing – Single- or double-spaced

Font – Times New Roman, 12 point. Text embedded within graphics or tables in the body of the Project Description Form shall be legible and not smaller than 8 point.

Proprietary or Export Control Marking: Offerors are expected to appropriately mark proprietary and/or export controlled information contained in their proposals. For additional information regarding export controlled information, refer to bullet “Export Control” identified in Proposal Content below.

5.1.3. Proposal Content

Each volume will include a cover page as follows:

a. Solicitation number;

b. Title of Proposal;

c. Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors with the CAGE and

DUNS, if applicable;

d. Technical point of contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);

e. Administrative/business point of contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);

f. Duration of effort

g. Prospective offerors shall state the certifications in the SAM at www.sam.gov have been completed and shall provide the Certification Validity period; and

h. The signature and title of an authorized representative of the entity submitting the proposal. If multiple organizations are participating, one signature from the principal/leading organization is acceptable.

Volume 1: Technical Proposal

It is critical that the offeror organize Volume 1 in accordance with the order and content of sections listed below to ensure thorough and fair evaluation of proposals. Technical proposals shall be limited to 150 pages. Volume 1 (Technical Proposal): Pages exceeding the page limit stated will not be evaluated. The Official Transmittal Letter, as well as the cover page, table of contents and resumes/biographical information about potential performers in the proposal are not subject to the page limitation. The proposal shall consist of one electronic file in portable document format (PDF), readable by IBM-compatible PCs.

The Technical Proposal must include the following sections:

Cover Page: This shall include the words “Technical Proposal”:

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary: Summarize the proposal and the expected benefits of the research effort.

Proposal: Describe the proposed research effort and the associated technical and management issues keeping in mind that evaluators will be reviewing the proposal consistent with the evaluation criteria listed in Section 6.1, Technical Evaluation Criteria;

i.e. Design & Technology, Approach, and Capability. The Technical Volume shall provide detail that substantiates the selection of the technologies proposed, to include benefits of the proposed technology relative to the program desired results. The Technical Volume shall include a clear statement of the technical objectives and the specific approach to be pursued and supporting background experience.

Aircraft Design: The FARA CP aircraft design shall be described, as a minimum, at the conceptual level. The minimum data set is defined in Appendix 1: AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DATA. Sufficiency of the maturity of the design, constituent critical technology items, and critical design and fabrication processes shall also be described. The operational suitability to conduct the mission described in the ICRD shall also be described.

Detailed Technical Approach: The Technical Approach shall provide descriptive detail that substantiates the selection of the offeror’s approach to design, build and test the CP aircraft as well as to develop data to support planning for, and acceleration of the post-CP program.

Offerors shall propose methods and degree of collaboration with the Government team with regular interactions, on program performance, analytical model development, and data usage. It is recommended that the offeror maximizes use of their organic program organizational structure to incorporate Government subject matter experts and program management personnel. Note that the Government team does not currently plan to embed personnel at Industry participant’s facilities on a long-term basis, so that should not be offered as the preferred solution.

Any long lead actions that represent significant cost or risk that may have to be executed before ID&RR should be specifically called out. Means of early review of those actions should be proposed.

The Offeror should propose an airworthiness approach that establishes “safety of flight” for the competitive prototype effort and is also responsive to the Airworthiness Qualification Plan (AQP provided as Supplemental Information) with an initial Airworthiness Qualification Specification (AQS). The offeror should attempt to convince the Government that the approach has sufficient engineering rigor, established internal processes and controls, and past demonstration of being successfully applied. The streamlined approach should maximize leverage and minimize duplication of effort from initial company-led envelope expansion testing, through government-led testing and ultimately to full qualification (beyond the scope of the FARA CP).

Statement of Work (SOW): The Technical Volume shall contain a detailed SOW in compliance with the following:

a. Complies with the desired results of this solicitation described in 2.6.2.

b. Describe how each task will be performed and identify sub-tasks, if appropriate.

The negotiated SOW will be a self-standing document without any proprietary restrictions, which will be incorporated into or attached to the award.

Integrated Master Schedule: An illustrative overview schedule shall be provided with major tasks, milestones and decision points. In addition, an integrated schedule shall be provided to the same level as the SOW.

Deliverables: In addition to the Government required data deliverables, offerors will provide a brief summary of any offeror proposed deliverables, including data, and reports consistent with the objectives of the work, along with suggested due dates (calendar days after the effective date of award). Data rights offered for all data deliverables, both Government and offeror proposed, shall be clearly identified. The negotiated deliverables will become an attachment to the award.

Management Plan: Provide a summary of the management plan, including an explicit description of what role each participant or team member will play in the project, and their past experience in technical areas related to this proposal.

Teaming arrangements shall be clearly described to include lines of authority, division of work, decision-making processes, financial arrangements and adjudication of disputes.

Include the proposed programmatic approach to cost, schedule, and risk management.

Although formal Earned-Value Management (EVM) is not required for the program, the proposer is expected to meet the intent and describe how they will provide ongoing assessment of technical and programmatic progress against the program plan, critical path, schedule and cost. Define the content of technical and financial progress reports to enable efficient program monitoring, tracking, and reporting. Describe how the program, if selected for contract award at EMD, will transition to a formal EVM process.

Program management tools should be the same tools used internally to manage the program.

Facilities: List the location(s) where the work will be performed, and the facilities to be used. Describe any specialized or unique facilities which directly affect the effort.

Government-Furnished Resources: Provide a brief summary of required information, hardware, facilities, or data which must be provided by the Government to support the proposed work, if any.

Resumes for Key Personnel: In Appendix A, provide resumes and curriculum vitae (CVs) for each of the key personnel. These resumes do not count toward the page limit.

Security Requirements: Research efforts selected and funded under this solicitation are expected to generate technical data that is subject to export control laws and regulations. Offerors who propose performance requiring access to and/or generation of technical data the export of which is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751 et. seq.) or Executive Order 12470 must be registered and certified with the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC). Contact the DLSC online at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp/ for further information on the certification process.

Offerors must have and provide to the Government a verifiable Joint Certification number or submit a copy of the Offeror's approved DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, with its proposal.

Cyber security: By submission of this offer, the Offeror represents that it will implement the security measures consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations” (see http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171) that are in effect at the time the solicitation is issued.

If the Offeror proposes to vary from any of the security requirements specified by NIST SP 800-171 that are in effect the Offeror shall include in the proposal, a written explanation of—

a. Why a particular security requirement is not applicable; or

b. How an alternative but equally effective, security measure is used to compensate for the inability to satisfy a particular requirement and achieve equivalent protection.

Offeror requests to vary from NIST SP 800-171 may require adjudication by an authorized representative of the DoD CIO in writing prior to award. Any accepted variance from NIST SP 800-171 shall be incorporated into the resulting award.

DoDI 5000.02, Enclosures 3 & 14

Technical Data & Software Assertions with Impact Analysis: Include here a summary of any assertion of Offeror restrictions on Government use of any technical data or computer software that will be developed or delivered under any resultant award using DFARS provision 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions. The Offeror shall describe these licensing rights using the terms from DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227- 7018. This includes any assertions to pre-existing results, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. Any rights asserted in other parts of the proposal that would impact the rights in this section must be cross-referenced. If less than unlimited rights in any data or software to be delivered under the resultant award are asserted, the Offeror must explain how these rights in the data will affect its ability to deliver research data, subsystems, and toolkits for integration as set forth below. Additionally, the Offeror must explain how the program goals are achievable in light of the proprietary and/or restrictive limitations. If there are no claims of proprietary rights in pre-existing data, this section shall consist of a statement to that effect.

For technical data (other than computer software documentation) pertaining to items, components, or processes developed at private expense, identify both the deliverable technical data and each such item, component, or process as specifically as possible (e.g., by referencing specific sections of the proposal or specific technology or components). For computer software or computer software documentation, identify the software or documentation by specific name or module or item number.

The Offeror shall include copies of negotiated, commercial, and other non-standard licenses that affect any software that will be further developed and/or delivered to the Government. Offeror shall attach to its offer for each listed item copies of all proposed negotiated license(s), Offeror’s standard commercial license(s), and any other asserted restrictions other than Government Purpose Rights; Limited Rights; Restricted Rights;

rights under prior Government contracts, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) data rights for which the protection period has not expired; or Government’s minimum rights.

The proposal will address Government licensing in technical data and computer software required to support Government and third party contractors’ sustainment of the aircraft and Government modifications of the aircraft, including depot level maintenance, aircraft modifications, and new mission equipment. This licensing includes not only traditional data and software required for technical data packages (TDP), but also to support analytical tools required for vehicle behavior modeling, the required manufacturing processes, material sources, and engineering software, e.g. finite element and stress models, needed for successful manufacture and repair of the aircraft.

Volume 2: Price/Cost Proposal

The Price/Cost Proposal shall consist of a cover page and two parts. Part 1 will provide a detailed cost breakdown of all costs by cost category and Part 2 will provide a Cost breakdown by task/sub-task using the same task numbers in the Statement of Work. If options are applicable, they shall be separately priced. The proposal shall consist of one electronic file in portable document format (PDF) and one Excel Spreadsheet, readable by IBM-compatible PCs. Technical information included within the Cost Volume will not be evaluated or considered in the rating of technical merit.

Cover Page: The use of the SF 1411 is optional. The words “Price/Cost Proposal” shall appear on the cover page in addition to the following information:

A plan for the entire project should be proposed, however the plan for the initial period of effort through the ID&RR, should have the most detail, sufficient to accurately describe the cost, work performance and schedule. Offerors will have a chance to provide additional details and plan (including cost) updates for the post-ID&RR effort with submission of the ID&RR deliverables.

Part 1: Part 1 shall include and substantiate a funding profile that shows total project cost and cost elements (labor hours, labor categories/mix, subcontracts, travel, materials, and any other direct costs) by month and Government fiscal year. This information shall be provided for both the total project and for each Statement of Work (SOW) task. All pricing rates used, and equipment and materials required shall be included. The individual tasks proposed shall be priced separately in order to facilitate selection and potential award of individual parts of the proposed effort. The Offeror shall provide a total estimated price for major demonstrations and other activities associated with the program, including cost sharing, if any. The Offeror shall state whether any Independent Research and Development (IR&D) program is or will be dedicated to this effort, or if IR&D is being pursued to benefit related programs as well.

Subcontractor cost proposals, if applicable, including pricing rate details, shall be provided concurrent with the prime contractor’s submission. Any cost sharing proposed shall include the type of cost share; i.e. cash or in-kind. Cost share or in-kind contributions, if proposed, shall be clearly identified. If in-kind contribution is proposed, the Offeror shall provide a discussion of how that cost share was valued. If proposing cost share for cooperative agreements, as described in paragraph 3.3. Type of Contract/Instrument, rationale for the amount proposed shall be provided. Proposal validity period (180 days requested) and proposed funding instrument shall be clearly identified.

Disclose any known or anticipated conditions that may have significant cost impact.

This type of information includes, but is not limited to, major teaming opportunities, company reorganizations or mergers, new acquisitions, labor union negotiations, and plant modernization programs.

Direct Labor – Individual labor category or person, with associated labor hours and unburdened direct labor rates;

Indirect Costs – Fringe Benefits, Overhead, G&A, COM, etc. (Must show base amount and rate)

Travel – Number of trips, destinations, durations, etc. (Travel estimate shall include costs for an initial kick-off meeting at the site designated in the individual Call and a final program presentation as part of the reporting on the results of the research effort);

Subcontract/Subrecipient – A cost proposal in as much detail as the Offeror’s cost proposal) will be required to be submitted by the subcontractor/subrecipient for efforts valued over $500,000. Subcontractors’ cost proposals must be similarly structured. All subcontracted work must be appropriately identified as such. If a subcontractor elects to submit an abbreviated proposal to the Offeror, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the subcontractor submits a detailed proposal concurrent with the Offeror’s submission. An Offeror’s proposal must identify principal items/services to be subcontracted, prospective subcontractors, and the basis upon which they were selected (if non-competitive provide justification). Include the type of contractual arrangement contemplated and the rationale for determining the price reasonable. The subcontractor’s cost proposal can be provided in a sealed envelope with the Offeror’s cost proposal or submitted directly to the Government. Subcontractor proposals shall be received not later than the date and time stated for receipt of proposals. Non-submission of proper subcontractor proposal will negatively affect the evaluation. In cases where specific subcontractors have not yet been defined, identification of subcontractor needs and anticipated value (with substantiation) of effort should be included.

Consultant – Provide consultant agreement or other document which verifies the proposed loaded daily/hourly rate;

Materials--Materials shall be specifically itemized with costs or estimated costs. Where possible, indicate purchasing method, (Competition, engineering estimate, market survey, etc.) Justification for TBD material costs should be provided along with estimates and basis for estimating projected costs.

Other Directs Costs (ODC) – ODCs shall be itemized, particularly any proposed items of equipment or facilities. Equipment and facilities generally must be furnished by the contractor/recipient. Justifications must be provided when Government funding for such items is sought.

Indirect Costs – (Overhead, General and Administrative (G&A), other) Provide the most recent rates, rate agreements, the period to which the rates apply and whether the rates are provisional or fixed. Include a copy of the rate agreement. If proposing Facilities Cost of Money include the DD Form 1861.

Subcontractor Cost Proposals - Subcontractors’ cost proposals must be similarly structured. All subcontracted work must be appropriately identified as such. If a subcontractor elects to submit an abbreviated proposal to the Offeror, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the subcontractor submits a detailed proposal concurrently with the Offeror’s submission. An Offeror’s proposal must identify principal items/services to be subcontracted, prospective subcontractors, and the basis upon which they were selected (if non-competitive provide justification). Include the type of contractual arrangement contemplated and the rationale for determining the price reasonable.

Part 2: Cost breakdown by task/sub-task by month using the same task numbers in the Statement of Work. The Price/Cost Proposal shall be consistent with the Offeror’s proposed SOW. Activities such as demonstrations required to reduce the various technical risks shall be identified in the SOW and reflected in the Price/Cost Proposal.

6. EVALUATION INFORMATION

This solicitation will use the evaluation criteria below for proposal selection for funding.

The Government anticipates receiving proposals with varying technical approaches.

The Government will evaluate in accordance with evaluation criteria specified below using a scientific review process. The Government will not evaluate proposals against each other since offerors will not submit these in accordance with a common work statement.

6.1. Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Government will evaluate proposals through an independent technical review using the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of relative importance.

Criterion I: The extent to which the proposed effort satisfies the defined Army need by use of innovative, efficient, affordable, and suitable solutions to the stated technical objective as described in the following:

a. Aircraft design:

1. Degree to which conceptual design of the FARA CP aircraft is likely to comply with the requirements and design guidance provided in this announcement and the SIP.

2. Identification of design goals and methods for survivability, sustainment, and system life. Degree to which the offeror clearly defines design philosophy and methods for designing-in the -ility attributes. Impacts of implementing new sustainment technologies, techniques and processes to enhance sustainment capabilities and reduce the product [system and subsystem] lifecycle cost will be evaluated.

3. Description of critical technology and process items and associated technical/schedule/cost risks for the prototype.

4. Sufficiency of design of the aircraft digital backbone, integration of critical avionics (aviate, navigate, communicate) and additional mission systems, degree of implementation of a modular open systems architecture.

5. Degree to which the experimental prototype represents the final version of the FARA design. In other words, the likelihood that changes to the air vehicle will be required post-CP due to inadequacy of design due to aeromechanics, flight dynamics and controls, structural, survivability or other issues.

b. Maturity:

1. Maturity of the design concept, critical constituent technologies items, critical processes for design and manufacturing for the CP effort and also for future EMD/production phases.

2. Cost drivers and risks for military airworthiness qualification of materials, processes and systems.

c. Operational Suitability: Degree to which proposed aircraft system characteristics and flying qualities are sufficient and beneficial for the FARA CP design mission.

Criterion II: The merit of the proposed approach (including reasonableness of the proposed tasks and schedule) to accomplish the objectives described in this solicitation package. Details evaluated include:

a. SOW / WBS: A Statement of Work / WBS that accurately depicts the proposed technical approach.

b. Schedule: A realistic schedule that reflects the SOW / WBS, period of performance and available funding profile by Government fiscal year; follows a logical sequence of events with milestones and decision points; includes a plan to award subcontracts and process purchase orders in a timely manner; and, as appropriate, is coordinated with vendors, suppliers, test facilities, GFP along with schedule implications if GFP cannot be provided. Additional detail for long lead items and development issues of particular complexity (at a minimum drive system, rotor blades and software) should be provided.

c. Collaboration: Proposed approach for collaboration with the Government is sufficient to maintain technical and programmatic oversight and to develop cost models, physics-based engineering models and systems engineering models. Combined test team approach to developmental ground and flight testing and support of independent Government testing.

d. Data Development Methodology: The sufficiency of data development methodology to include analysis, ground testing, flight envelope expansion and vehicle characterization testing to develop data necessary to meet flight testing and other FARA CP goals including airworthiness and acquisition planning and acceleration for the follow-on FARA program.

e. Contractor Logistic Support (CLS): Initial plan for providing CLS support during Government flight testing.

f. Design and Analysis: Extent to which the design strategy and process

(including design and analysis tools) provides sufficient detail, accuracy, and resolution necessary to design, build and test the proposed FARA CP aircraft and other demonstration hardware and software in the given available time. Any special considerations for long-lead items should be included.

g. Integration and Fabrication: Extent to which the integration and fabrication approach is suitable to meet design objectives and obtain desired quality and structural integrity while meeting schedule to first flight for proposed FARA CP aircraft. Integration and fabrication-specific risks as well as potential long-lead item decision points and criteria should be identified. Extent to which the integration and fabrication approach is suitable for EMD and production. Feasibility of productionizing fabrication processes for a potential follow-on program of record.

h. Software: Extent to which proposed methodology for planning and tracking software coding, verifying, validating and documenting are suitable to manage the software process. Extent to which proposed means of finding, dispositioning and fixing software errors at the module and system level are likely to result in meeting desired results. The extent to which the offeror has defined a sufficient software verification and validation (V&V) approach that describes the level of qualification or certification requirement the offeror is proposing to meet, the basis for requirements described, and processes/methodologies (testing levels and resources: i.e., unit tests, end-end tests, etc.; SIL, hardware in the loop, etc.) planned to meet proposed requirements within the time available.

i. Safety of Flight: Safety of flight The degree to which the offeror’s airworthiness/safety of flight approach is assessed to have suitable level of engineering rigor, established internal processes and controls, and history of being successfully applied in order to use as a basis for streamlined, Army safety-of-flight oversight.

j. System Engineering Approach: Processes, tailored to time available and prototype development, are sufficient to conduct requirements definition, analysis and management; risk management; configuration management; architecture design and interface management; technical data management; technical assessment; system hazard management and decision analysis.

Criterion III: The capability of the Offeror to accomplish the proposed effort, and follow-on EMD/production efforts, which includes suitability and availability of personnel, facilities, and any necessary data.

a. Project Performance and Progress: Suitability of methods to provide ongoing assessment of technical and programmatic progress against the program plan, critical path, schedule and cost. Define the content of technical and financial progress reports to enable efficient program monitoring, tracking, and reporting. Description of how the program, if selected for contract award at EMD, will transition to a formal EVM process.

Program management tools should be the same tools used internally to manage the program.

b. Business Entity, Personnel and Facilities: The organizational structure is presented, identifying roles, responsibilities, key, accountable positions and people (includes experience, citizenship); a plan that ensures personnel and facilities are available when required; substantiation that the offeror team has adequate qualifications (relevant expertise, knowledge and experience) to conduct proposed work and meet program objective; a description of facilities that are adequate for aircraft design, fabrication and testing of manned rotorcraft prototypes and future production aircraft.

Teaming arrangements shall be clearly described to include division of work, decision-making process and adjudication of disputes. Extent to which the recipient’s data, knowledge and intellectual property developed in this effort will be available to benefit a future acquisition Program of Record.