MODIFICATION
A -- ADAPTIVE AND REFLECTIVE MIDDLEWARE SYSTEMS (ARMS) Part 2 of 2
- Notice Date
- 9/23/2002
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Contracts Management Office, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203-1714
- ZIP Code
- 22203-1714
- Solicitation Number
- BAA02-24(2)
- Response Due
- 10/31/2002
- Point of Contact
- Douglas Schmidt, DARPA Program Manager, Phone 000-000-0000, Fax 703-696-4534, - Alan Frederick, Contracting Officer, Phone (703) 696-0047, Fax (703) 696-2208,
- E-Mail Address
-
none, afrederick@darpa.mil
- Description
- This revised version of BAA02-24 supercedes the version posted on September 13, 2002. GENERAL INFORMATION (See BAA02-24 Part 1 for Program Scope Info.) The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Information Exploitation Office (DARPA/IXO) requires completion of a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Cover Sheet Submission for each Abstract/Proposal, by accessing the URL below: http://www.dyncorp-is.com/ixo/index.asp?BAAid=02-24 After finalizing the BAA Cover Sheet Submission, the proposer must print the BAA Confirmation Sheet that will automatically appear on the web page. Each proposer is responsible for printing the BAA Confirmation Sheet and attaching it to the "original" and each designated number of copies. The Confirmation Sheet should be the first page of your Abstract/Proposal. If a proposer intends on submitting more than one Abstract/Proposal, a unique UserId and password should be used in creating each BAA Cover Sheet. Failure to comply with these submission procedures may result in the submission not being evaluated. PROPOSAL FORMAT Proposers must submit an original and 4 copies of the full proposal and 2 electronic copies (i.e., 2 separate disks) of the full proposal (in Microsoft Word ?97 for IBM-compatible, PDF, Postscript, or ASCII format on one 3.5-inch floppy disk or one 100 MB Iomega Zip disk). Each disk must be clearly labeled with BAA 02-24, proposer organization, proposal title (short title recommended) and Copy ___ of 2. The full proposal (original and designated number of hard and electronic copies) must be submitted in time to reach DARPA by 12:00 NOON Local Time, Thursday, 10/31/02, in order to be considered during the initial evaluation phase. However, BAA 02-24 will remain open until 12:00 NOON Local Time, Friday, 10/31/03. Thus, proposals may be submitted at any time from issuance of this BAA through Friday, 10/31/03. While the proposals submitted after Thursday, 10/31/02, deadline will be evaluated by the Government, proposers should be mindful that the likelihood of funding such proposals is less than for those proposals submitted in connection with the initial evaluation and award schedule. Proposers must obtain the BAA 02-24 Proposer Information Pamphlet (PIP), which provides further information on the areas of interest, submission, evaluation, funding processes, proposal abstracts, and full proposal formats. This Pamphlet will be posted directly to FedBizOpps.gov and may also be obtained by fax, electronic mail, mail request to the administrative contact address given below, or at URL address http://www.darpa.mil/ixo/solicitations/arms/index.htm. Proposals not meeting the format described in the Pamphlet may not be reviewed. EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluation Criteria - "Technology Developer". Proposals submitted under this category will be evaluated according to the following criteria: TD Criterion 1. Innovation and Payoff: Quality of discussion presented that indicates proposed technology to be developed is innovative. Quality of discussion that conveys expected QoS improvements relative to current capabilities available commercially or in DoD. Quality of discussion that describes analytical and/or practical limitations of proposed technology in the context of the TSCE. Quality of discussion that elucidates DARPA's critical role in sponsoring proposed technology. TD Criterion 2. Technology Development, , and Experimentation Approach: Quality of analysis presented that elucidates the risks and benefits of proposed technology development approach in the context of the TSCE. Depth and breadth of understanding of tradeoffs considered in the choice of alternate approaches. Degree to which presented QoS measures of proposed technology are quantified, sound and complete. Quality of discussion that describes feasible experimentation approaches for the technology under development. Quality of discussion that describes offeror's technical and management approach that will support integration activities with the select OEP Developer. TD Criterion 3. Project Plan and Schedule: Quality of the statement of work (SOW). Quality of plan presented to synchronize development and facilitate the integration and testing of proposed technology with select ARMS OEP Developer. Soundness of plan to coordinate with OEP Developer and Technology Developer performers in the ARMS program. Degree to which plan and schedule include precise, measurable, performance-based milestones at intervals of no more than six months. Overall soundness of proposed schedule. Quality of discussion that identifies major schedule risks and specific techniques proposed to manage risk. TD Criterion 4. Experience and Qualifications: Level of experience and qualification of key personnel. Level of experience and qualification of non-key personnel. Experience of proposed personnel in efforts of comparable approach and complexity. TD Criterion 5. Cost: The overall estimated cost to accomplish the effort should be clearly shown, as well as the substantiation of the costs for the technical complexity described. Evaluation will consider the value to Government of the research and the extent to which the proposed management plan will effectively allocate resources to achieve the capabilities proposed. Evaluation Criteria - "OEP Developer (OEPD)". Proposals submitted under this category will be evaluated according to the following criteria: OEPD Criterion 1. Challenge Problem Formulation: Degree to which qualitative and quantitative goals of initial formulation of TSCE challenge problem(s) are precise and compelling. Quality of discussion that characterizes the application and system QoS characteristics in the TSCE domain. Quality of discussion that elucidates DARPA's critical role in sponsoring solutions to challenge problem(s). OEPD Criterion 2. Integration Approach: Quality of discussion that elaborates the proposed technical approach, system engineering and configuration management practices that will enable controlled integration of potentially disparate DRE middleware technologies and tools into coherent open tool suites capable of managing the resources of DRE systems efficiently, scalably, dependably, predictably, and securely. Quality of discussion that elaborates a specific roadmap that a Technology Developer might follow in order to integrate component(s) into proposed OEP. Quality of discussion that details proposed management approach that will permit demonstrably more functionally complex builds approximately every six months that are synchronized to DARPA program milestones. Quality of discussion that identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Technology Developer and OEP Developer/Integrator in support of integration activities. OEPD Criterion 3. Experimentation and Analysis Approach: Quality of discussion that elaborates proposed approach for the systematic conduct of experiments on aggregates of ARMS technology development components. Quality of discussion that identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Technology Developer and OEP Developer/Integrator in support of experimentation activities. Quality of discussion that elaborates the goals, techniques and deliverables associated with analysis of experimental results. OEPD Criterion 4. OEP Infrastructure: Suitability and quality of proposed OEP facilities, hardware and software that will be used to implement the OEP experimental testbed. Quality of discussion that elaborates approach(es) for leveraging OEP infrastructure and ARMS technologies in order to demonstrate solutions to the identified TSCE challenge problems that will provided by the DD(X) Design Agent. OEPD Criterion 5. Project Plan and Schedule: Quality of the statement of work (SOW). Soundness of plan to coordinate with OEP Developers and Technology Developer performers in the ARMS program Degree to which plan and schedule include precise, measurable, performance-based milestones. Overall soundness of proposed schedule. Quality of discussion that identifies major schedule risks and specific techniques proposed to manage risk. OEPD Criterion 6. Experience and Qualifications: Experience and Qualifications - Level of experience and quality of key personnel. Level of experience and quality of non-key personnel. Degree to which proficiency to manage and perform complex software development and integration has been successfully demonstrated. Degree to which proficiency to design, plan, conduct and analyze the results of controlled experimentation on complex systems, particularly shipboard combat systems, has been successfully demonstrated. OEPD Criterion 7. Technology Transition Plans and Capabilities: The offeror should provide a clear explanation of how the technologies to be developed will be transitioned to capabilities for the DD(X) Program, including a description of the proposed Integrated Data Environment (IDE). Technology transition should be a major consideration in the design of experiments, particularly considering the potential for involving potential transition organizations in the experimentation process. OEPD Criterion 8. Cost - The overall estimated cost to accomplish the effort should be clearly shown as well as the substantiation of the costs for the technical complexity described. Evaluation will consider the value to Government of the research and the extent to which the proposed management plan will effectively allocate resources to achieve the capabilities proposed.
- Record
- SN00174017-W 20020925/020924065608 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |