MODIFICATION
A -- Broad Agency Announcement for Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
- Notice Date
- 1/25/2006
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- N00024 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue S.E. Washington Navy Yard, DC
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Solicitation Number
- N0002405R6309
- Response Due
- 1/26/2007
- Archive Date
- 1/25/2007
- Point of Contact
- James E. Watkins 202-781-3957 MaryAnn Keyser 202-781-3957
- Description
- This announcement is an extension and submission procedures change to Broad Agency Announcement N00024-05-R-6309. All submissions received before this posting date will be evaluated under the procedures originally posted. The Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is available on both the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) web site located at http://www.eps.gov or http://www.fedbizopps.gov and the Navy Electronic Commerce on Line (NECO) site located at http://www.neco.navy.mil. While it is understood that FBO is the single point of entry for posting of synopsis and solicitations to the internet, NECO is the alternative in case FBO is unavailable. Please feel free to use either site to access information posted by the Naval Sea Systems Command. The Program Executive Office Littoral Mine Warfare - Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Program Office (PMS 403), Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC, is soliciting mature technologies applicable to UUV Systems that are ready for final maturation, integration, or demonstration, and transition into PMS403 programs. The following are a few examples of key UUV technology areas, however responders are encouraged to address other technology areas as well. Please be aware amendments adding new technology areas may be added throughout the year. Note: This will not change the evaluation process. Launch and Recovery. Launch and Recovery (L&R) is a key feature of any UUV system, and it is closely related to the vehicle and host platform characteristics. Particular emphasis is placed on submarine launch and recovery issues with the 21? Heavyweight vehicle class, including submarine flow field and two-body hydrodynamic force characterization. Sensor Integration. A UUV system combines many sensors, which compete for resources and bandwidth and often require careful timing or tuning to operate optimally together. Emphasis is placed on integration of acoustic sensors with DVLs and acoustic communications, along with the integration of antenna-mounted ISR sensors. Communications and Networking. Emphasis is on real-time, or near real-time, RF communications of sensor data from a UUV in operational sea states. Autonomy. Open architecture autonomy is needed to support long, complex missions in unpredictable or harsh environments. It includes the need to make independent decisions based on the mission goals, environmental conditions, the on-board sensors, and remaining energy. Emphasis is placed on autonomy technologies that could be part of a larger decision-making architecture Computer-aided Detection and Classification. CAD/CAC of targets from UUV sensor data improves capability both for onboard real-time UUV processing and for off board post-processing. Emphasis is placed on performance in difficult or harsh environments. Energy. A high-capacity rechargeable UUV energy source is needed to increase UUV endurance and create a more attractive alternative to primary batteries. Emphasis is placed on addressing shipboard integration concerns. As illustrated in the Navy?s recently updated UUV Master Plan, there are four classes of UUVs. The planned transition path for these BAA products is the Heavyweight class (21?) Mission Reconfigurable UUV System (MRUUVS). This BAA will be open for one year from the date of the announcement. Proposals may be submitted at any time within that period. Contracts may be awarded, as appropriate, and will be limited by funding availability. Please continue to pay attention. Proposals to this BAA will be reviewed using a two-step process. First, respondents are asked to submit a brief white paper outlining their ideas for technical review and discussions and to provide a ROM cost and schedule. The evaluation criteria for the first step will be transition potential to 403 programs [both meeting near-term needs as well as identified gaps] and cost. A scale of 1 to 5 will be used. White papers rated 5 directly transition to 403 programs, meet technical shortfalls, and are within the allocated budget. A rating of one means the technology would not transition to 403 programs in the near term, does not meet any identified need, and is above the allocated budget. Mature technology (including factors such as safety, reliability, modularity, and security) and use of an open systems approach are important characteristics of transitionable technology. Responses that are rated 4 or 5 will be invited to submit a step-two proposal following the guidelines listed below. Responses rated lower will be rejected and referred to the technical point of contact for informal discussions on how the white paper may be made more transistionable to 403 programs. Once a full proposal is received, evaluations will be based on the criteria list below. This will be the final review process before proposals are selected for contract award. White papers and subsequent full proposals should be submitted to: COMMANDER, Naval Sea Systems Command, ATTN: Code 02635, Cara Spiro, 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, S.E., Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20376, e-mail cara.spiro@navy.mil. This synopsis constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) per FAR 6.102(d)(2)(i); there will be no formal request for proposals (RFP) or other solicitation in regard to this announcement. Because both the technical and cost aspects of an offeror's step-one or step-two submission will be evaluated at the same time, it is desirable that one volume containing all information be submitted. In presenting the proposal material, prospective offerors are advised that quality of the information is significantly more important than the quantity. Therefore, offerors are requested to confine their submissions to essential matters, providing sufficient information to define their offer and establish an adequate basis for the Government to conduct its evaluation. Offerors may submit their proposals (two paper copies and five electronic copies on CD using Microsoft Office 2000 or earlier). Respondents must be able to certify that they have an appropriate facility clearance to meet the security requirements of work proposed at the time of proposal submission, and key personnel must be certified as holding an appropriate clearance, at the time of proposal submission. Proposals shall consist of one volume consisting of the technical proposal, management approach, and cost. The technical proposal is limited to 20 pages exclusive of the Statement of Work (paragraph (7), below) and cost information, which has no page limit. Pages are to be 8.5 x 11 inch, single-sided. Minimum font is 10 point. Succinct proposals are desired. The technical portion shall consist of the following sections, each starting on a new page: (1) A cover page, including proposal title, technical and administrative points-of-contact along with the telephone and facsimile numbers, followed by a letter signed by the authorized officer specifying the proposal validity period (at least 120 days); (2) An Executive Overview of the proposed technologies and/or concepts as well as any innovative claims for the proposed research, and how they will contribute to and support the objectives of a technology evaluation and demonstration; (3) A detailed technical proposal of the primary precepts of the concept with appropriate elaboration as to the ingenuity associated with the concept. This section shall not exceed 10 pages. (4) A summary of the deliverables including data associated with the proposed research. (5) A summary of the schedule and milestones for the proposed effort that can be traced to the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). (6) A one-page WBS. (7) A succinct Statement of Work clearly detailing the scope and objectives of the work and, if any, specific contractor requirements. The statement of work should only document the specific work to be performed as discussed in item 3 above. Any disclosure of information as relating to the merits of the concept included in the Statement of Work but not included in the detailed technical proposal required by paragraph (3) above will not be considered for award selection. If any portion of the proposed effort is predicated upon the use of Government-owned resources of any type, the contractor shall clearly identify: the resources required, the date the resource is required, the duration of the requirement, the source from which the resource may be acquired, if known, and the impact on the effort if the resource is not provided. (8) A description of the results, products, and transferable technology expected from the contract. This section should specifically address any intellectual property or organizational proprietary cla ims associated with the outcome of this effort. (9) A brief discussion of past performance detailing previous accomplishments and work in this or closely related research areas, previous cost and schedule performance, and the qualifications of the previous key personnel. (10) A brief discussion of the overall approach to the management of this effort, including brief discussions of total organization, use of personnel and their qualifications, project/function/subcontractor relationships, security clearances for personnel and facility, technology transition plans, government interfaces, and planning, scheduling, and control practices. At a minimum the cost portion shall include a cost summary, and a detailed breakdown of cost by WBS element by month for the effort. The selection of proposals for contract award will be based on a scientific review of proposals submitted in response to each BAA. The major purpose of the evaluation will be to determine the relative merit of the technical approach of each proposal and its contribution to the near-term goals of the MRUUVS heavyweight program. Developments that are applicable to other classes will be duly evaluated and considered, however funding priority remains with the near-term PMS403 programs of record. . Business and contractual aspects, including proposed cost and cost realism, will also be considered as part of the evaluation. Selection of proposals for award will be based on the potential benefits to the Government weighed against the cost of the proposals, in view of the availability of funds. Specific evaluation criteria are as follows: (1)Degree to which solutions to technical issues important to PMS403 programs are proposed, their feasibility, and the offeror's understanding of the proposed approach and technical objectives. It is desirable that the developments be structured in phases to allow assessment and/or decision points, where allowable; (2)The offeror's ability to implement the proposed approach as demonstrated by specific accomplishments in the technical field to be studied, the qualifications (including past performance) of the proposed principal investigator and other personnel, and the availability of appropriate facilities and clearances; (3)The degree to which technical data and/or computer software developed under the proposed contract are to be delivered to NAVSEA with rights compatible with NAVSEA research and development objectives; and (4)The extent to which offerors identify and commit to small businesses and to small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, women-owned small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, or other minority institution participation in the proposed effort, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor relationship. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SELECT FOR AWARD ANY, ALL, PART, OR NONE OF THE RESPONSES RECEIVED.
- Record
- SN00973047-W 20060127/060125212531 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |