A07_RWP_Amendment_03_IVAS_20180906.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..2

1.1 Background & Authority…………………………………………...………..2

1.2 Announcement for Other Transaction Agreement…………..….....…….2

1.3 Non-Government Advisors & Evaluators………..…………………….….3

SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS…………………………………………………………...4

SECTION 3 – GENERAL GUIDELINES………………………………..…………….6

SECTION 4 – WHITE PAPER CONTENT………………………………..…………..6

4.1 Part 1 – Introduction…………………………………………………………6

4.2 Part 2 – Technical……………………………………………………………7

4.3 Part 3 – Data Rights Assertions……………………………………………8

4.4 Part 4 – Significant Non-Traditional Participation or Price Share………9

4.5 Part 5 – Contractor Responsibility………………………………………..11

4.6 Part 6 – Summary………………………………………………………….12

SECTION 5 – BASIS OF EVALUATION OF WHITE PAPER…………………….12

SECTION 6 – DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS……………………………..13

6.1 – Pre-Demonstration Submission Requirements……………………….13

6.2 – Process Demonstration………………………………………………….14

6.3 – Product Demonstration…………………………………………………..14

SECTION 7 – BASIS OF EVALUATION OF DEMONSTRATION…………..……15

SECTION 8 – BASIS OF SELECTION TO RECEIVE REQUEST FOR

PROTOTYPE PROPOSAL..……………………………………..…..16

SECTION 9 – BASIS FOR AWARD OF OTHER TRANSACTION

AGREEMENT…....………..……………………………………………16

9.1 Price Analysis……………….……………………………………………….16

9.2 Additional Considerations…….…………………………………………….16

SECTION 10 – FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION………………………………………..17

SECTION 11 – ATTACHMENTS……………………………………………………….17

SECTION 12 – CONTACT INFORMATION……………………………….…………..17

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background & Authority*

Problem Statement: The fundamental problem to overcome is an erosion in close combat capability relative to the pacing threats identified in the National Defense Strategy. The ultimate objective of the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) (formerly identified as Heads Up Display (HUD) 3.0) program is to rapidly develop, test, and manufacture a single platform that Soldiers can use to Fight, Rehearse, and Train.

This platform will provide increased Lethality, Mobility and Situational Awareness.

The Army requires innovative technological solutions to address current and future security threats. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) identifies that near peer threats have capabilities that match, and in some cases exceed the capabilities of American units. These potential adversaries can detect, target, and lethally engage before US forces become aware of their presence. These technologies are being developed by near peer militaries, and also by the civilian sector at large.

IVAS will provide an unparalleled advantage on the battlefield and the ability to incorporate the Synthetic Training Environment (STE) improving Soldier ability to conduct training and high fidelity on-the-ground rehearsals.

Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371b, Other Transaction Authority, agreements for Prototypes may be awarded to carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense (DoD), or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces.

The Government estimates the total cost of the program, including follow-on production, to be greater than $500,000,000.00.

The information provided in this announcement for Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) opportunity is intended to ensure that to the maximum extent practicable, competitive procedures are used when entering into an OTA to carry out this prototype project.

*For additional information please refer to the DoD, Other Transaction Authority Guide for Prototype Projects, Version 1.2.0, dated January 2017

1.2 Announcement for OTA Opportunity

This announcement for an OTA is seeking white papers to accelerate lethal defensive and offensive capabilities utilizing innovative components, including commercial items, for the selection of an IVAS in accordance with the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO). The Government is seeking complete solutions; partial solutions will not be considered. The acquisition will be conducted as follows:

Step 1: Submission of White Paper.

Step 2: Upward Invitation(s) for Demonstration(s).

Step 3: Demonstration(s) and selection of apparent OTA awardee.

Step 4: Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP)

Step 5: Negotiations with apparent OTA awardee.

Step 6: OTA Award.

The Government will not pay Offerors for submissions, and may engage in dialogues with Offerors prior to OTA award.

The Government intends to award one (1) OTA, procuring approximately two thousand five hundred & fifty (2,550) IVAS prototypes (to include hardware, software, and the associated interface control documentation) in four (4) increments or “capability sets”.

This competitively awarded prototype project will provide for the acquisition of follow-on production systems upon successful completion of the project, without further competition, as authorized by statute. The Government anticipates the selection of one

(1) Offeror for award of a single contract or agreement for follow-on production of IVAS.

Each white paper shall include the following:

Introduction (1 page) Technical (46 pages) Specification sheets do not count towards Technical page limit.

Data Rights (no page limit) Non-Traditional Defense Contractor & Level of Participation (2 pages) Contractor Responsibility (no page limit) Summary (1 page)

White papers are due no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on 07 September 2018.

Required proposal information shall be submitted to the AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) system at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx to the attention of lisa.j.yamakawa.civ@mail.mil.

Questions regarding the objectives or preparation of the White Paper shall be addressed to Lisa J. Yamakawa, Agreements Officer, Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG), Email: lisa.j.yamakawa.civ@mail.mil

1.3 Non-Government Advisors & Evaluators

Army Contracting Command (ACC) policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information, and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Restrictive https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx mailto:lisa.j.yamakawa.civ@mail.mil notices notwithstanding, Prospective offerors are advised that Non-Government advisors & evaluators from the System Evaluation Technical Assistance (SETA) support contractors identified below may participate in the selection process. All Non- Government Advisors will have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with the Government. These companies will be excluded from competition for this award.

Prospective offerors may enter into a specific NDA with these corporate entities prior to submission of their white paper/demonstration/proposal:

COMPANY COMPANY

POC POC PHONE POC EMAIL

Artlin Consulting Matt Maginniss (703) 304-0542 matthewmaginniss@artlincons ulting.com CACI Tracey

Anderson (703) 679-3520 tranderson@caci.com

NCI M. O’Brien (571) 329-2244 mobrien@nciinc.com

MITRE Bob Orlosky (703) 983-7622 rorlosky@mitre.org Paul Bonnewitz (703) 983-3053 pbonnewitz@mitre.org

All ACC and DoD support contractors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing DoD-sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All Government participants and advisors in the evaluation process will also file NDAs.

SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS

"Agreements Officer" as defined by the Department of Defense (DoD) Other Transaction Authority Guide is an individual with authority to enter into, administer, or terminate other transactions for prototype projects. To be eligible to be an Agreements Officer, the individual must be a warranted DoD Contracting Officer with a comparable dollar value warrant.

"Innovative" means--

(1) any new technology, process, or method, including research and development; or

(2) any new application of an existing technology, process, or method.

"Key Participant" as defined by the DoD Other Transaction Authority Guide means a business unit that makes a significant contribution to the prototype project. Examples of what might be considered a significant contribution include supplying new key technology or products, accomplishing a significant amount of the effort, or in some other way causing a material reduction in the Price or schedule or increase in performance.

"Nontraditional Defense Contractor (NTDC)" as the term is defined in section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code with respect to applicable authority, means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the DoD for the procurement or transaction, any mailto:matthewmaginniss@artlinconsulting.com mailto:matthewmaginniss@artlinconsulting.com mailto:tranderson@caci.com mailto:mobrien@nciinc.com mailto:rorlosky@mitre.org mailto:pbonnewitz@mitre.org contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section. This includes all small business concerns under the criteria and size standards in Title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, part 121 (13 CFR 121).

"Other Transaction for Prototype Projects" refers to this type of OTA. This type of OTA is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2371b for prototype projects directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or for the improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. This type of OTA is treated by DoD as an acquisition instrument, commonly referred to as an "other transaction" for a prototype project or a Section 2371b "other transaction". "Prototype" can generally be described as a preliminary pilot, test, evaluation, demonstration, or agile development activity used to evaluate the technical or manufacturing feasibility or military utility of a particular technology, process, concept, end item, effect, or other discrete feature.

"Rapid Target Acquisition (RTA)" is the ability for the Family of Weapon Sights (FWS) to wirelessly send FWS weapon sight imagery (with reticle), spatially aligned with the image in the IVAS. The RTA capability will reduce the Soldier's signature by allowing him/her to engage quickly without the use of active lasers therefore enabling a passive engagement.

“Significant Contribution” In accordance with the DoD Other Transaction Authority Guide (2017), examples of supporting rationale to justify a significant contribution include:

Supplying a new key technology or product; accomplishing a significant amount of the effort; causing a material reduction in cost or schedule, and/or; increase in performance.

The determination of significant participation by a NTDC is an integrated assessment of the examples listed above. In order to meet the definition of a significant contribution, the proposed initiative/project awardee must provide substantiating rationale that demonstrates at least one of the above examples is clearly met. Meeting all examples outlined in section 4.2 is not required.

"Small Business" as defined by the DoD Other Transaction Authority Guide means a small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.

632).

“Synthetic Training Environment (STE)” (STE) is defined as the next generation holistic collective training capability that will train units where they will fight, with whom they will fight with, and in complex operational environments to include dense urban and subterranean; within the entire range of combined arms maneuver tasks in support of Multi-Domain Operations. STE will be a common synthetic environment enabled by a core of Global Terrain/One World Terrain (OWT); common authoritative data and models; Training Simulation Software (TSS), and Training Management Tools (TMT).

The STE will be available where training occurs (Home Station, Armories, Institutions, Deployed) and will include Air and Ground Reconfigurable Virtual Collective Trainers

(RVCTs) and a Soldier/Squad Immersive Virtual Training (S/SiVT) close combat training capability. The STE will be cloud-enabled, compatible with the Army Enterprise Network, and service-based through the Common Operating Environment. The STE will provide the realistic repetitions necessary to fight 25 battles before the first; a Secretary of Defense priority.

SECTION 3 – GENERAL GUIDELINES

Non-compliance with the submission instructions in Section 3 may preclude offeror from receiving an upward invitation.

An individual Offeror may not submit more than one (1) white paper.

The costs of preparing and submitting the White paper or preparing for & conducting a demonstration are not considered an allowable direct charge to any contract or agreement.

Technical data with military application may require appropriate approval, authorization, or license for lawful exportation.

The ability to obtain an OTA award based upon a submission may depend on the ability of the Offeror to obtain necessary facility clearances and approvals to provide storage for sensitive materials.

Specification sheets are permitted, advertising brochures are not desired.

The period of performance for the OTA award will be no greater than 24 months unless otherwise mutually agreed to by all parties.

All submissions shall be unclassified. White papers containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall be marked appropriately.

White paper information shall be provided to the Government in Microsoft Word 2013 compatible format and shall provide more details on the proposed solution submitted.

The White paper shall not exceed fifty (50) pages using 12-point font.

Any Data Rights Assertions, specification sheets and Contractor Responsibility information do not count towards the fifty (50) pages.

SECTION 4 – WHITE PAPER CONTENT

Each White Paper submitted shall consist of six (6) Parts as described below.

4.1 White Paper Part 1, Introduction

Part 1 shall provide:

1. Offeror’s Company Name and Address, Date of Submission, Point of Contact Name, Title, E-Mail Address, Phone, and Address;

2. A list of any subcontractors, team members or key participants;

3. Abstract providing a concise description of the white paper;

4. Statement indicating prototypes will be Buy American Act compliant in accordance with 41 U.S.C. Chapter 83

4.2 White Paper Part 2, Technical

Part 2 shall address the Offeror’s Technical approach & Schedule for each of the following eight (8) IVAS capabilities as outlined in the Statement of Objectives (SOO):

1. Adaptive Soldier/Squad Architecture;

2. Synthetic Training Environment – Squad capability;

3. Heads Up Display (HUD) Integration;

4. Thermal Camera Integration - This section should address the Offeror’s integration efforts only. Note: Sensors will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE);

5. Low Light Camera Integration - This section should address the Offeror’s integration efforts only. Note: Sensors will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE);

6. NettWarrior 3.0 Integration;

7. Squad Lethality Metrics/Soldier/ Squad Performance; and

8. Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning.

In addition, this Part 2 shall provide a completed copy of Attachment # 9 for:

• individual Price (Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)) for each of the four (4) capability sets as outlined in the Statement of Objectives (SOO); and

• separate Price/ROM for each of the eight (8) capabilities (as applicable) within each capability set.

Attachment # 9 does not count towards page count.

4.3 White Paper Part 3, Data Rights Assertions

Part 3 shall identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government's use of that intellectual property. In addition to these required areas, the Government may request the Offeror provide additional restrictive information/detail with respect to the proposed Technical capabilities identified in the White Paper.

Include documentation proving your ownership of or possession of appropriate licensing rights to all patented inventions (or inventions for which a patent application has been filed) that will be utilized under your white paper for the IVAS solution. If a patent application has been filed for an invention that your white paper utilizes, but the application has not yet been made publicly available and contains proprietary information, you may provide only the patent number, inventor name(s), assignee names (if any), filing date, filing date of any related provisional application, and a summary of the patent title, together with either: (1) a representation that you own the invention, or (2) proof of possession of appropriate licensing rights in the invention.

The White paper shall provide a good faith representation that you either own or possess appropriate licensing rights to all other intellectual property that will be utilized under your proposed solution.

Technical Data or Computer

Software to be Furnished With Restrictions*

Basis for Assertion**

Asserted Rights Category***

Name of Person Asserting

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.

Offerors shall also identify any intellectual property involved in this effort associated with technology developed under a government contract, other agreement or grant and provide identifying information on same, such as a contract number.

The White paper shall also provide a good faith representation that you either own or possess appropriate licensing rights to all other intellectual property that will be utilized under your proposed solution. Offerors shall include documentation proving your ownership of or possession of appropriate licensing rights to all patented inventions (or inventions for which a patent application has been filed) that will be utilized under your white paper for the IVAS solution. If a patent application has been filed for an invention that your white paper utilizes, but the application has not yet been made publicly available and contains proprietary information, you may provide only the patent number, inventor name(s), assignee names (if any), filing date, filing date of any related provisional application, and a summary of the patent title, together with either: (1) a representation that you own the invention, or (2) proof of possession of appropriate licensing rights in the invention.

In addition to these required areas, the Government may request the Offeror provide additional restrictive information/detail with respect to the proposed Technical capabilities identified in the White Paper.

The Government anticipates that rights to appropriate commercial use of mixed-funded technologies will be retained by industry partners

4.4 White Paper Part 4, Significant Non-Traditional Participation or Price Share

This part shall include:

1. A narrative to include substantial rationale of how your company will meet the requirements for non-traditional participation or cost share as detailed below.

Before an agreement can be executed, one of the following conditions must be met:

• At least one (1) NTDC is participating to a significant extent in this prototype project;

• All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small business or NTDCs; or

• At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government.

Examples of acceptable substantial rationale include:

Supplying New Key Technology or Products: Rationale to support this example includes a new component, technology or process without which the prototype cannot be developed successfully. Rationale should include a thorough qualitative description of the new component, technology or process in enough detail to permit sufficient understanding by someone unfamiliar with the technology. Offerors should avoid using acronyms. To the maximum extent practicable, the rationale should explain how this new component, technology or process directly or indirectly supports the sought-after enhancement of the prototype. In other words, developing a new or improved component, technology or process is considered to be more significant than simply supplying one that already exists or is customarily provided.

Accomplishing a Significant Amount of the Effort: Rationale to support this example is most often, but not limited to, the cost associated with the work provided by the NTDCs.

A significant amount of the effort would be considered approximately 1/3 of the total burdened cost. The use of this example should be quantified in estimated dollars and percentages of the total burdened effort. In other words, when combining all the work done by NTDCs, it is possible for the NTDC participation to be considered significant and meet the significant NTDC participation requirement based upon the quantitative degree of the total NTDC award cost. Since the statutory language now includes most small businesses as NTDCs, meeting this quantitative threshold should be easier to reach. Using this example to meet the requirement for significant NTDC participation requires less qualitative rationale. However, providing less than approximately 1/3 of the total burdened cost may not support the effort being a “significant amount”, therefore providing additional rationale as to how it supports one of the other examples would be advised.

Causing a Material Reduction in Cost or Schedule: Rationale to support this example should include a thorough description of how the NTDC will be participating in enough detail to permit understanding for someone unfamiliar with the technology. Most importantly, the example should be quantified in terms of cost savings or schedule savings (i.e. it must be substantiated with actual numbers and not general estimates or wide ranges). Furthermore, it is expected that these cost savings or schedule savings would exceed what is normally expected from the ease of using preferred/regular vendors. The rationale should also qualify the cost or schedule savings by describing the value to the Government. For example, a three (3) month schedule savings for a program that is short term or must strictly adhere to a test schedule is considered to be more significant than a three (3) month schedule savings for a longer effort that does not have a strict schedule. Cost savings could be qualified by highlighting how a new component, technology or process will save a significant amount of money if the prototype is successful.

Increase in Performance: Rationale to support this example should clearly demonstrate how the new component, technology or process for which the NTDC is responsible will qualitatively or quantitatively improve the performance of the prototype. Improvements in performance that are accomplished solely by the NTDC are considered to be more significant than performance improvements in which the NTDC only contributes.

Because prototype projects are inherently improvement projects, this example should be tied as closely/clearly as possible to the actual sought-after enhancement of the prototype. If unique skilled personnel, facilities and/or equipment will be used (more than a business decision to outsource work), then those highly specialized inputs should be highlighted, particularly if they are commercial in nature (not typically found in the defense industry).

2. Work Breakout Narrative identifying all vendors within the teaming arrangement, what step(s) in the OTA prototyping process each will participate in, and the specific effort(s) each of the identified vendor within the teaming arrangement shall accomplish.

Within this narrative, offerors shall also provide the following:

• Name, location and socioeconomic size for all vendor within the teaming arrangement outlined in the White Paper;

• Identify the location where all work will be performed and/or where components will be manufactured by each vendor within the teaming arrangement; and

• Identify the specific IVAS component or capability & the vendor responsible for producing/participating the component/capability, including the percentage of work being performed for each with regards to the total effort.

4.5 White Paper Part 5, Contractor Responsibility

Part 5 shall provide confirmation of, and any supporting documentation on, the following:

1. Offeror has adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them;

2. Offeror is able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

3. Offeror has a satisfactory performance record (Prospective awardee will not be determined responsible or non‐responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history);

4. Offeror has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;

5. Offeror has the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls or the ability to obtain them; and

6. Disclosure statement of Offeror’s foreign interests.

Offerors that fail to confirm the above or provide supporting documentation that is not in the best interest of the Government may not be considered for an upward invitation for Demonstration.

4.6 White Paper Part 6, Summary

Part 6 shall provide a summation of the White Paper solution, any assumptions made by the Offeror, and total Price/ROM to complete performance, in accordance with the SOO, within twenty-four (24) months.

SECTION 5 - BASIS OF EVALUATION OF WHITE PAPER TO SELECT OFFEROR(S)

TO RECEIVE UPWARD INVITATION FOR DEMONSTRATION

The evaluation of the white paper will be accomplished through a technical review of each of the eight (8) capabilities using the following criteria:

• Impact of the Project: Provide a solution to Fight, Rehearse, and Train with one system developed within 24 months;

• Quality and Technical Merit: Sound technical and managerial approach to the proposed work, including a demonstrated understanding of the critical technology challenges required to address each of the eight (8) capabilities and a strategy to address any technical challenges, including a risk mitigation strategy within 24 months;

• Capabilities and Experience: Capability to perform proposed work and history of performance of the Team and Team members in developing related technologies and systems within 24 months;

• Significant Non-Traditional Participation or Price Share:

The Government’s integrated assessment includes reviewing the individual contribution of each NTDC in the context of the overall effort and documents why that is considered significant. The integrated assessment encompasses a complete evaluation of every proposed NTDC. In some cases, one (1) NTDC will clearly establish significance. In other cases, it may require the participation of multiple NTDCs to provide enough rationale to support an assessment of “significant participation”. Cost may by quantitative degree define the significance in some proposals, and may also support the qualitative significance of the contribution in other instances (approximately 1/3). In other words, as an example, an NTDC supplying new key technology that comprises 20% of the total effort may be easier to support as being significant than an NTDC supplying new key technology that comprises only 10% of the total effort.

If the relative cost of the NTDC contributions is low, it is subjected to closer scrutiny and very detailed supporting rationale should be provided by the proposed initiative/project awardee. When evaluating an NTDC’s contribution, the closer that contribution ties into, supports, or is the primary innovation/enhancement of the overall prototype project, the more significant that contribution will be considered. This is particularly relevant when it applies to the examples involving new key technology and increase in performance.

Overall, proposed initiative/project awardees should strive to provide thorough, clear and concise rationale to support determinations that NTDC participation is significant.

Each White Paper will be rated using the following table:

Color Term Definition

Green Good White Paper meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Yellow Fair White Paper meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Red Poor White Paper does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Offeror(s) not selected to receive an upward invitation for demonstration will be eliminated from the competition.

SECTION 6 – DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Offeror(s) selected to receive an upward invitation for demonstration will provide a demonstration of their capabilities at their facility. The process & product demonstration shall occur on the same day and shall not exceed eight (8) hours. Demonstration will be held at the facility where production and/or assembly of the end item is performed.

6.1 Pre-Demonstration Submission Requirements

Upon being notified of upward invitation for demonstration, the offeror shall provide:

1. PowerPoint presentation, not to exceed ten pages total, summarizing Section 6.2 Process Demonstration; and

2. 15-minute video summarizing the key points of Section 6.3 Product Demonstration.

The video and briefing shall be provided within one (1) business day of notification of upward invitation by the Government; and

3. Updated ROM (Attachment # 9) to include:

• Individual Price (Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)) for each of the four (4) capability sets as outlined in the Statement of Objectives (SOO); and

• Separate Price/ROM for each of the eight (8) capabilities (as applicable) within each capability set.

4. Updated narrative in accordance with the instructions at Section 4.4, Significant Non-Traditional Participation or Price Share.

The PowerPoint presentation, video, updated ROM and updated Significant Non- Traditional Participation or Price Share narrative shall be submitted to the AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) system at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx to the attention of lisa.j.yamakawa.civ@mail.mil.

6.2 Process Demonstration

The Process demonstration shall include:

1. Configuration Database;

2. Configuration Management;

3. IVAS Manufacturing and Software Development

4. Quality Management.

6.3 Product Demonstration

Live, hands-on demonstration(s) using functional hardware and software are required.

The Product Demonstration of hardware & software shall include (to the maximum extent possible):

1. Five (5) Commercial/prototype Heads-Up Display (HUD) products that demonstrate mixed reality software;

2. Capability to integrate sensors (sensors to be provided as Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE)) into commercial product;

3. Data Lake;

4. Interface Control Documentation and preliminary design for commercial/prototype product;

5. Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) HUD, COTS thermal sensor, 2-D Augmented

Reality (AR);

6. Tactical Assault Kit (TAK) data and 3D display of blue forces;

7. Data Lake Hardware & Architecture;

8. Modeling & Simulation (M&S) analysis, gap identification;

9. Military mission planning & battle drills in mixed reality software; and

10. Initial One World Terrain (OWT), Training Simulation Software (TSS), Training

Management Tool (TMT) Capability of initial Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Squad Capability software development efforts.

The Government reserves the right to request more than one (1) demonstration.

SECTION 7 - BASIS OF EVALUATION FOR DEMONSTRATION

The Government will evaluate Demonstration and supporting information using the three (3) criteria below.

• Technology: Technical maturity to achieve the eight (8) capabilities and ability to provide prototypes as stated above within 24 months.

• Manufacturing and Software Development Process: Manufacturing and software development process to include assembly line, production, test, inspection, assembly, packaging and shipping of IVAS. Long lead items and potential to impact the proposed production schedule for quantities up to two thousand five hundred & fifty (2,550) units. Facility layout for minimum and maximum monthly production rates.

• Quality Management: Quality Management process for in-coming inspection; in process inspection and control; final inspection; process for identification, inspection, and control of critical performance characteristics and processes; and the process for inspection and prevention of non-conforming product.

Each Demonstration will be rated using the following table:

Color Term Definition

Green Good Demonstration meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Yellow Fair Demonstration meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Red Poor Demonstration does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s updated ROM to assess affordability.

SECTION 8 - BASIS OF SELECTION FOR OFFEROR TO RECEIVE REQUEST FOR

PROTOTYPE PROPOSAL (RPP)

The highest rated Offeror with an affordable ROM will be selected to receive the Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) based on evaluation of the Demonstration, PowerPoint presentation, Product Demonstration video, updated ROM, and updated Significant Non-Traditional Participation or Price Share narrative.

The Agreements Officer will then negotiate directly with the single Offeror on the terms and conditions of the OTA, to include payments.

SECTION 9 – BASIS FOR AWARD OF OTA AGREEMENT

After receipt of the written proposal the Agreements Officer will negotiate directly with the Offeror on the terms and conditions of the OTA, including payments.

To receive an award, one (1) of the following must be present:

• Significant participation by non-traditional defense companies; or

• One-third Price share of the total agreed-upon price unless an exception under section 2371b(d)(1) applies.

The Government intends to award one (1) firm fixed price, (FFP) OTA, for up to two thousand five hundred and fifty (2,550) IVAS to the company that best meets the Government requirements.

If an agreement cannot be reached, the Government reserves the right to conclude negotiations and select the next, highest rated offeror based on the results from the aforementioned Demonstration evaluations outlined in Section 7 above.

The Government reserves the right to make no OTA award if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

9.1 Price Analysis

The Government will conduct price analysis of the Offeror’s proposed overall price to determine affordability & price reasonableness.

9.2 Additional Considerations

Companies must have a Dunn and Bradstreet (DUNS) number and be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the right party. In general, to invoice and receive payment after award of an OTA, Companies must register in Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) system.

The company must be considered a responsible party by the Agreements Officer, and is not suspended or debarred from such agreement by the Federal Government, and is not prohibited by Presidential Executive Order, or law from receiving such award.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION

In projects that provide for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000, the agreement must include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General the ability to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement.

SECTION 10 - FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION

Given that competitive procedures will be used for selection of the OTA award, and provided that the IVAS prototype project is completed successfully, the Government reserves the right to award a follow-on production contract or agreement without further competition, as authorized by statute.

In the event that future requirements develop, the Government may utilize the follow-on production award to fulfill these requirements up to a period of five (5) years after the date of the follow-on production award. This includes requirements for sustainment purposes.

The Government estimates requirements for follow-on production may be greater than one hundred thousand (100,000) IVAS.

SECTION 11 – ATTACHMENTS

The following attachments are available to download from the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) under this announcement:

Attachment 1: Statement of Objectives (SOO) Attachment 2: DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD254) Attachment 3: Military Standard (MIL-STD) 1913, dated 10 June 1999

Attachment 4: Purchase Description CO-PD-02-02K, dated 13 May 2015 Attachment 5: Performance Specification MIL-PRF-31013, dated 25 April 1996 Attachment 6: Performance Specification MIL-PRF-44366B, dated 29 April 1996 Attachment 7: MIL-STD-1913 (AR), dated 3 February 1995 Attachment 8: NW Interconnect Architecture White Paper, dated 20 October 2017 Attachment 9: Price/ROM Spreadsheet

SECTION 12 - CONTACT INFORMATION

Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) Lisa J. Yamakawa, Email: lisa.j.yamakawa.civ@mail.mil.

Be advised, only an Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into a binding agreement on behalf of the Government. He or she will sign the agreement, and only an Agreements Officer has the authority to change the terms of the agreement.