FARACP_Solicitation_10032018_v2.pdf

PROGRAM SOLICITATION

FOR

FUTURE ATTACK RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT (FARA)

COMPETITIVE PROTOTYPE

Solicitation Number W911W6-19-R-0001

Issued By:

US Army Contracting Command – Redstone

On Behalf Of:

Aviation Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Aviation Development Directorate (ADD)

For:

The Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Cross-Functional Team (CFT)

Table of Contents

1. General Information......................................................................................Page 3

2. Program Description……………………………………………………………..Page 3

3. Award Information……………………...………………………………………..Page 9

4. Eligibility Information…………………….…………………………..…………Page 11

5. Proposal Instructions…………………..……………………....……………...Page 12

6. Evaluation Information………………………………………………………… Page 22

7. Other Information……………………………………..………………………..Page 31

8. Instructions to Offerors………………………………..………………………..Page 31

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. Introduction

Under this Program Solicitation, the Army Contracting Command – Redstone Arsenal’s (ACC-RSA’s) solicits proposals for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Competitive Prototype (FARA CP) using an Other Transaction Authority for Prototype (OTAP) in accordance with 10 United States Code (USC) 2371b.

This Program Solicitation is unrestricted. Small businesses are encouraged to propose to this Program Solicitation. Applicable NAICS codes are: 336411, Aircraft Manufacturing; 336416, Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing;

334511, Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing; 541715, Aircraft, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts.

Proposals submitted shall be in accordance with the herein (See Section 5).

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 Aviation Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Aviation Development Directorate (ADD).

2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2.1. The Government solicits proposals for the FARA CP.

2.2. Objective. FARA CP funds a competitive prototyping effort to design, build, and test a FARA in an operationally relevant environment. The results of this prototyping and test effort will support a decision to enter into a formal program of record for subsequent full system integration, qualification and 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 Government expects the FARA CP to 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 Program 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 a subsequent full system integration and qualification phase such as Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) or equivalent and follow-on production phase.

Coinciding with selection of the air vehicle for a subsequent full system integration, qualification and production phase, a focused acquisition decision will occur for the final digital aircraft architecture design, mission systems, and system integrator.

2.4.2. The Government intends to implement the typical efficiencies utilized during science and technology (S&T) project execution similar to the Army’s Joint Multirole Technology Demonstration (JMR TD) program during this effort as further explained herein. Furthermore, leveraging the Performance Based Acquisition approach of a Statement of Objectives (SOO), the Government is providing herein, 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 (The entities or business units proposing to and competing for an award under this Program Solicitation) 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 preceding phase of the FARA CP program shall be eligible for any subsequent phases.

2.5 Approach.

2.5.1. This Program Solicitation describes the intent to develop necessary and sufficient data to transition from a CP to full system integration, qualification and production. 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 and into production. It is anticipated that an OTAP will be used to establish the partnerships for the FARA CP effort.

2.5.2. The FARA CP program will be executed with a phased approach:

In Phase 1, the initial set of Performers (the entities or business units that are the direct recipients of the OT agreement) will be given nine months to develop preliminary designs and provide the Government team with the data and insight required for the Government to down-select to two (or possibly more based on funding available) Performers for Phase 2, after an Initial Design and Risk Review (ID&RR) (see Appendix 2), based on which technical solutions present the most advantageous outcome to the Government. Using initial design and approach data, the most advantageous outcome to the Government will be determined by an overall assessment using the following criteria:

• Re-application of initial evaluation criteria (Section 6) to additional information developed during the initial design period.

• Cost and schedule performance to date.

• Updated cost proposal and work plan for Phase 2.

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

The Government will make decisions regarding early procurement (prior to ID&RR) of long-lead material/items for the FARA CP. These requests for long-lead items are subject to Government ‘s review, acceptance of costs proposed and decision to fund by assessing cost, schedule and performance risk with each request in terms of:

• Extent to which the request enables them to meet Phase 2 fabrication and test schedule

• Impact on schedule if request is not funded

• Cost of the request

• Technical and schedule performance at the time of the request

In Phase 2a, the Performers selected in the first down-select will proceed to the detail design, build, and Performer-led test phase that includes all other necessary and supporting tasks. In November 2020 a Final Design & Risk Review (FD&RR) (See Appendix 2) will be executed with each Performer. Upon assessment of technical progress and risk, the Government will make the determination to approve continue or terminate the effort. Approximately 24 months are allocated for the aircraft build including subsystem testing with an anticipated first flight in November 2022. Prior to initiation of flight test and subsequent to the appropriate level of technical drawings finalized and subsystem testing complete (as proposed by the Offerors), an Initial Preliminary Design Review (IPDR) will be executed (around mid-2022) to provide the Government the required insight, data, and documentation to execute the efforts associated with accelerating planning and approval of a subsequent full system qualification and production phase.

In Phase 2b, the aircraft is provided to the Government for flight testing to evaluate performance and operational-type maneuver characteristics.

In Phase 3, the Government will evaluate if the Performers have successfully completed the competitive prototype project, as described in Section 2.6.3, and may select a Performer for entry into a subsequent full system integration, qualification and production phase. The Government may use competitive prototype data, to include but not limited to, flight performance and IPDR results as part of the selection criteria. If the Government decides to down select to one vendor during Phase 3, the down selection criteria will be established upon completion of the ID&RR. The selected performer may be authorized to procure multiple sets of long-lead items prior to entering the Phase 4.

If executed, Phase 4 is the formal, system integration and qualification and subsequent production effort. In accordance with 10.U.S.C. 2371b(f), and upon a determination that one or more of these prototype projects has been successfully completed, Phase 4 may include a design update, integration of mission equipment, additional component/system level qualification testing and the potential procurement of additional prototype aircraft. It is anticipated that the OTAPs established for the FARA CP effort will be used for these subsequent efforts. In addition, one or more of these competitively awarded prototype OTAs may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

At all schedule milestones, as described in the table below, the Government team will review and assess the degree to which each Performer is likely to obtain the FARA CP program desired results (see Section 2.6.2.). After timely deliberation, the Government will provide instruction to continue as planned, continue with changes, or to discontinue the effort.

Schedule Milestones Estimated Date Purpose Phase Funding Instrument Awards 3Q FY19 Phase 1

System Requirements Review

1Q FY20 For information

Initial Design and Risk Review (See Appendix 2)

2Q FY20 Provides basis for down-select decision

Down Selection to Two Participants

3Q FY20 Down-select decision

Final Design & Risk Review (See Appendix 2)

1Q FY21 Go/No-go decision to proceed to build/test

Phase 2a

Initial Preliminary Design

Review / Data Submission to Support Decision to Enter Subsequent Full System Qualification and Production

3Q FY22 For information

Test Readiness Review Prior to first flight

Go/No-go to begin major testing

Prototype First Flights / Flight Demos

1Q FY23

Government Flight Testing 3QFY23 - 4Q

FY23

Phase 2b

FARA CP Completion 4Q FY23 Down-select decision and transition to follow-on

Phase 3

Subsequent full system qualification and production phase

TBD Phase 4

2.6. Scope.

2.6.1. The scope of Phases 1 and 2 of the FARA CP 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 mandatory attributes and other performance targets as described in Supplemental Information Package (SIP), SIP2: DESIGN GUIDANCE (See Section 8.4 for information on how to request the SIP and Appendix 6 of this Program Solicitation for a complete list and description of the information contains in the SIP).

• 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 anticipated subsequent full system qualification and production activities.

2.6.3. To successfully complete the FARA CP effort, design validation of the FARA mandatory attributes through a combination of direct demonstration and credible analysis will be necessary. In addition, sufficient data will be provided for planning follow-on efforts.

2.7. Additional Guidance.

2.7.1. As described in the SIP2: DESIGN GUIDANCE, there are a few mandatory attributes that must be met. Liberty is provided to the proposer to offer streamlined and efficient trades in the other areas.

2.7.2. The FARA CP effort will include partial integration of mission systems as described in the SIP1: INTRODUCTION. The air vehicle shall be designed with a modular open system approach (MOSA) that will allow a systems integrator to accommodate a requirements-compliant mission systems package at a future date (SIP3: AIRCRAFT AND MISSION SYSTEMS GUIDANCE). The full mission systems suite will be integrated during a subsequent full system integration and qualification program, after the down select to a single aircraft solution.

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

2.7.4. Developmental ground and flight testing to characterize vehicle behavior and expand flight envelope shall be conducted as a combined test team with both Government and Industry Performer flight test personnel. After a sufficient developmental ground and flight testing period for envelope clearance and safety assurance, 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 TEST SCOPE 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 enduring, continuous, real-time access to technical and programmatic data, models and analyses developed during FARA CP.

However, data should be revision controlled to ensure decision integrity is maintained and preserved for critical decisions (e.g. airworthiness, safety, etc.).

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 sub-awards, 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. A streamlined approach that relies heavily on company engineering rigor, 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, for the subsequent full system qualification and production effort, 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 public aircraft operation in the national airspace.

Note: Some appendices are included as additional information with this Program Solicitation (e.g. Description of Deliverables). However, other documents are in a SIP due to the sensitivity of the information. See Section 8, “INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS” for guidance on how to obtain the SIP.

3. AWARD INFORMATION

3.1. Anticipated Award Date

The anticipated award date for funding instruments for Phases 1-2 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 through the end of Phase 2. Each Phase 1 Performer will receive approximately $15M between FYs 19-20 ($8.5M in FY19 and $6.5M in FY20) with an anticipated 4-6 Industry Performers (additional funding may be provided for long-lead Phase 2 activity with Government concurrence). While the Government anticipates 4 to 6 Performers will be participating in Phase 1, the decision is contingent on the technical merit of the proposed approaches. Therefore, based on its assessment of the proposal, the Government retains the discretion to award more, fewer or none. The two Industry Performers selected for Phase 2 in FY20 after ID&RR will receive a fixed funding level of approximately $735M between FYs20-23. The Period of Performance for Future Vertical Lift (FVL) FARA CP is not anticipated to extend beyond FY23. The funding profile is FY19 - 1%, FY20 – 18%, FY21 – 27%, FY22 – 32%, FY23 – 22%. It is desired that proposals address Phases 1 and 2.

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 as indirect costs as specified in 48 CFR part 31.

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 Section 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 Program 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 DoD guidance prior to proposal submission.

3.4. Number of Awards Anticipated

3.4.1. As presented in Section 2 above, the Government anticipates initially awarding between four and six funding instruments depending upon the technical merit (See section 6) of the proposals it receives and affordability of such proposals. The number of agreements will be reduced through down-select process at the end of Phase 1.

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

3.5. Anticipated Period of Performance

The period of performance of the FARA CP program (phases 1 and 2) 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:

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

2. Program Management Plan

3. Bi-monthly Technical Status Reports

4. Monthly Financial Status Updates / Bi-Monthly Financial Status Reports

5. Long Lead Item Procurement Plan

6. Cyber Security Requirements and Technical Guidance (CSRTG)

7. Open Systems Management Plan

8. Open System Verification Plan and Results

9. FARA Air Vehicle System Architecture Technical Data Package

10. FARA Air Vehicle System and Digital Backbone Design Technical Data

Package

11. Model Management Plan

12. Airworthiness Substantiation Data

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

14. Initial Design and Risk Report and Program Cost & Plan Update

15. Final Design and Risk Report

16. Cost and Software Data Report

17. Initial PDR Data Package

18. Technical Reports

19. Meeting Presentations and Briefing Material

20. 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 Performers; however, foreign-owned entities can participate as sub-awardees (any business units other than the Performer subordinate to and engaged by a Performer via contract, agreement or any other means, with or without compensation, to perform effort under their OT prototype agreement) to U.S. prime Performers. 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 shall address export compliance of any foreign partners/sub-awardees in its cost volume.

4.2. Non-Traditional Defense Contractors

In accordance with the DoD Other Transactions Guide for Prototype Projects dated January 2017:

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, sub-awardees, 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 https://www.sam.gov/ 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 the solicitation, and each proposal will be evaluated independently; however each proposal shall be limited to one aircraft design. Proposals should include all effort for FARA CP Phases 1-

2. The most fidelity should be in the Phase 1 portion of the effort. Performers will be given the opportunity to update work plans and cost proposals for ID&RR. The US Government requires submission of electronic file(s) 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, 11 inch x 17 inch fold-out may be used for large images or diagrams

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 7.2 below.

5.1.3. Proposal Content

Each volume will include a cover page as follows:

a. Program Solicitation number;

b. Title of Proposal;

c. Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of sub-awardees 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

The Offeror should organize Volume 1, Technical Proposal in accordance with the sections listed below to ensure thorough evaluation of proposals. Technical proposals shall be limited to 150 pages. The Statement of Work (SOW), Work Break-down Structure (WBS), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and copies of software licenses should be segregated and then are not subject to the page limitation. Each 11 inch x 17 inch fold-out will count as two pages. All 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 US Government requires submission of electronic file(s) for each proposal.

The Volume 1, Technical Proposal shall 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 FARA CP 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.

The Technical Volume shall provide detail that substantiates the selection of the solution proposed, to include benefits 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. Design trade-offs should be described and justified. The minimum data set is defined in Appendix 1: AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DATA Designs shall be guided by the FARA System Performance Specification (SPS) and informed by the FARA Initial Capability Refinement Document (ICRD) and other guidance as described in the SIP2: DESIGN GUIDANCE. Sufficiency of the maturity of the design, constituent critical technology items, and critical design and fabrication processes shall be substantiated. The operational effectiveness and suitability to conduct the mission described in the ICRD shall also be described.

The Offeror should clearly define the aircraft attributes and design parameters, philosophy, goals, approaches and methods for all relevant aspects that include performance, agility and maneuverability, airworthiness, cyber resilience, software, safety, availability, reliability, maintainability, survivability, sustainment, and system life.

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 FARA-CP program. The technical approach should reflect the development of a complex system on a constrained timeline. The approach should be suitable to identify, assess, communicate and act quickly and effectively on new technical, schedule, safety, security and cost risks and issues as they develop.

Offerors should identify applicable or tailored design guidance and standards used; and methods for determining the appropriate level of engineering rigor or design assurance levels for all aspects of the aircraft vehicle and mission systems hardware and software.

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 into the Offeror’s knowledge management routines. 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. The Offeror should propose a method of providing the Government team access to FARA development data.

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. Details for long-lead items and complex development items (at a minimum drive system, rotor blades and software) should be provided. A suitable approach should be provided to identify, assess, communicate and act on new schedule risks and issues as they develop.

The Offeror should describe the approach for the safety analysis/assessment and identification of the hazards, the related safety requirements with associated level of rigor or design assurance level to mitigate the hazards and handling of residual risks.

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 justify to the

Government that the approach has sufficient engineering rigor, processes and controls, and will be 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).

The Government intends to provide Improved Turbine Engines as Government Furnished Property (GFP) to meet the FARA CP schedule. However, the Offeror should address the impact of non-availability of the ITE engine, and substitution of a T700-GE-701D as a temporary surrogate on the FARA CP build and flight test.

The Offeror should describe the approach to provide analysis and test data for an aircraft fully representative of a FARA Increment 1 aircraft (as defined by the ICRD for FVL Family of Systems (FoS) FARA, Increment 1) for the set of circumstances for which the CP configuration is not identical (e.g. weights and drag due to full mission systems integration).

The Offeror should describe the approach to monitor, maintain and assure data security and product integrity against cyber threats; and detect, report and recover against cyber attack for both the development environment and the developed system.

A contractor logistics support (CLS) plan should be proposed to support Government flight testing.

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 Program Solicitation described in Section 2.6.2.

b. Describes how each task will be performed and identifies sub-tasks, if appropriate.

c. Accurately depicts the proposed technical approach in which known risks to performance, schedule and cost and the associated risk mitigations are addressed.

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. The proposed schedule should be realistic;

reflect the SOW / WBS, period of performance and available funding profile; follow a logical sequence of events with milestones and decision points; include a plan to enter into sub-awards and process purchase orders in a timely manner; and, as appropriate, be coordinated with vendors, suppliers, test facilities, GFP along with schedule implications if GFP cannot be provided.

Deliverables: In addition to the Government required data deliverables, Offerors will provide a brief summary of any Offeror proposed deliverables, including models, 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. The Offeror should address transition to a Program of Record with formal EVM requirements.

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 FARA CP effort.

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

Resumes for Key Personnel: In Appendix A, provide resumes for each of the key personnel and an organizational chart. These resumes do not count toward the page limit.

Security Requirements: Research efforts selected and funded under this Program 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.

Technical data resulting from this topic may result in the generation of classified data (SECRET). Pre-award access to classified information or submission of a classified proposal is authorized. Offerors shall provide evidence of (or a plan to obtain) both an appropriate facility clearance and the requisite personnel security clearances at the appropriate level to meet the requirements the FARA CP program in the proposal.

Offerors that have an existing facility security clearance (FCL) shall submit a copy of its DoD Security Agreement, DD Form 441, as part of the proposal. For those Offerors without a FCL, the Offeror shall address its ability to qualify for a FCL based upon Defense Security Service (DSS), Facility Clearance Branch (FCB), guidelines. Upon agreement award, the Agreements Officer will sponsor the successful Offeror for a FCL.

For more information on FCLs, please review the DSS FCB internet site at DSS / Industrial Security Field Operations / Facility Clearance Branch (FCB). Additionally, the Offeror shall provide evidence that a sufficient number of employees have personnel security clearance at the appropriate level to meet the requirements of the FARA CP. It is possible that at some point during the program there may be a need to generate and/or store TOP SECRET information.

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 Program Solicitation is issued.

If the Offeror proposed to vary from any of the security requirements specifies 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.

Technical Data & Software Assertions with Impact Analysis: All Technical Data and Software developed under this Agreement are to be delivered to the Government with Government Purpose Rights. Offerors may include a summary of any assertions of Offeror restrictions on Government use of any technical data or computer software with proper justification. The Offeror will describe these assertions as follows:

Technical Data or Computer Software

Basis for Assertion**

Asserted Rights Category***

Name of Person Asserting http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/fac_clear.html http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/fac_clear.html http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171 to be Furnished with Restrictions*

Restrictions****

(LIST)***** (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)

*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. For computer software or computer software documentation identify the software or documentation.

**Generally, development at private expense, either exclusively or partially, is the only basis for asserting restrictions. For technical data, other than computer software documentation, development refers to development of the item, component, or process to which the data pertain. The Government's rights in computer software documentation generally may not be restricted. For computer software, development refers to the software. Indicate whether development was accomplished exclusively or partially at private expense. If development was not accomplished at private expense, or for computer software documentation, enter the specific basis for asserting restrictions.

***Enter asserted rights category (e.g., government purpose license rights from a prior contract, rights in SBIR data generated under another contract, limited, restricted, or government purpose rights under this or a prior contract, or specially negotiated licenses).

****Corporation, individual, or other person, as appropriate.

*****Enter “none” when all data or software will be submitted without restrictions.

This will include 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 shall be cross-referenced. If less than Government Purpose Rights in any data or software to be delivered under the resultant award are asserted, the Offeror shall 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 shall 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 or 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; e.g. Limited Rights; Restricted Rights; rights under prior Government funding instruments, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) data rights for which the protection period has not expired;

or Government’s minimum rights.

The proposal shall 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. Sustainment includes all Operations, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT) data supporting military or civilian activities for all levels. Modifications include aircraft modifications and new mission equipment. This licensing includes not only data and software commonly required for technical data packages (TDP), but also to support analytical tools required for vehicle behavior modeling, architecture data to support systems acquisition and integration, 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: Cost/Price 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/element 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 electronic files; one in portable document format (PDF) and one in Excel Spreadsheet (with formulas). Technical information included within the Cost Volume will not be evaluated or considered in the rating of technical merit. Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this Program Solicitation may result in an adverse assessment of an Offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes.

The Price/Cost Proposal for Phases 1 and 2 should be submitted; however, the plan for the initial period of effort through the ID&RR, should have the most detail. The plan shall accurately describe the cost, work performance and schedule and to demonstrate reasonableness and realism. Offerors will have a chance to provide additional details and plan (including cost) updates for the post-ID&RR, Phase 2 effort with submission prior to ID&RR.

Price General Instructions: The Offeror is responsible for providing adequate evidence to prove credibility of proposed costs/prices. The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted with any and all information reasonably required to explain the estimating process, including the judgmental factors applied and the mathematical or other methods used in the formulation of the proposed price, including those used in projecting from known data; and the nature and amount of any contingencies included in the proposed price. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide any other general or specific information that may be beneficial in the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed prices.

The Offeror’s cost estimating practices shall be in accordance with the Offeror’s established accounting practices for accumulating, allocating and recording costs to final cost objectives. The Offeror shall also identify any deviations from the Offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal. If the Offeror proposes to absorb a portion of costs, explain the reason and impact on cost elements that will be given to those absorbed costs.

The Offeror shall include a cost element summary of the total proposed /price and a cost element summary by Government fiscal year, including profit dollars and percentages. The proposed price summaries should distinguish between the prime and each sub-awardees.

The Volume 2, Cost/Price Proposal, shall include the following sections:

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

Part 1: Part 1 shall include and substantiate a funding profile that identifies total project price and cost element breakdown (i.e. labor hours, labor categories/mix, sub-awards, travel, materials, and any other direct and indirect costs) by month and Government fiscal year. This information shall be provided for Phases 1 and 2 of the FARA CP program. . All pricing rates used, and equipment and materials required shall be included. The individual tasks proposed shall be priced separately. 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. Sub-awardee cost proposals, if applicable, including pricing rate details, shall be provided concurrent with the prime Performer’s submission.

Offerors shall describe compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2371b. to include which of the conditions in the 2371b(d)(1) statutory authority will be met as follows:

• For condition (A) “There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project”, significant extent includes but will not be limited to:

o participation that causes a material reduction in the cost or schedule o participation that causes an increase in the performance of prototype https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1875391109-791309680&term_occur=1&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b o The performer that is responsible for a new key component, technology, or process on the critical path o The performer that will accomplish a significant amount of the effort

• For Condition (B), “All significant participants in the transaction other than the

Federal Government are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors”, significant participation is the prime offeror being a small business concern as described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or a nontraditional defense contractors as defined in 10 U.S. Code § 2302 (9).

• For condition (C) “At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds…