chloe baa · web viewcommercial aircraft are susceptible and subject to the threat of attack by...

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUCEMENT (BAA)HSARPA BAA07-04

High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial System (HAE UAS)-Based Counter-MANPADS Technology

Assessment Published: 03/27/2007

INTRODUCTION:

This solicitation is a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016. A formal Request for Proposals (RFP) will not be issued.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science & Technology (S&T) Directorate will not issue paper copies of this announcement. DHS S&T reserves the right to select for award and fund all, some, or none of the Full Proposals received in response to this solicitation. No funding for direct reimbursement of proposal development costs will be allowed. Technical and cost proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. However, depending on the markings on the proposal, DHS S&T will adhere to FAR policy on handling source selection information and proprietary proposals. It is the policy of DHS S&T to treat all proposals as sensitive competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

Awards may take the form of contracts or other transactions (OTs) agreements. In the event an Offeror or subcontractor is an FFRDC, Department of Energy National Laboratory, or other Federally funded entity, DHS S&T will work with the appropriate sponsoring agency to issue an interagency agreement pursuant to the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1531) or other appropriate authority. Depending on the nature of the Full Proposals HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

received, DHS S&T will also consider awarding a grant or cooperative agreement. Therefore, the applicable laws and regulations governing the legal vehicle used for award will depend on the legal vehicle chosen by DHS S&T. In this regard, Offerors should propose a preferred vehicle type for DHS S&T to consider for award.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Agency Name -

Department of Homeland SecurityScience & Technology DirectorateWashington, DC 20528

2. Research Opportunity Title -

High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial System (HAE UAS)-Based Counter-MANPADS Technology Assessment

3. Program Name -

Homeland Innovative Prototypical Solution (HIPS)

4. Research Opportunity Number -

HSARPA BAA07-04

5. Response Date -

White Papers Due: 04/25/2007

Full Proposals Due: 06/08/2007

6. Research Opportunity Description -

Commercial aircraft are susceptible and subject to the threat of attack by Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). The DHS S&T is currently demonstrating, via two Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs), one of the most mature technologies to defeat MANPADS using onboard laser-based directed infrared countermeasure (DIRCM) systems. While that demonstration program is proceeding well, Congress has also funded DHS S&T to assess alternative approaches employing emerging technologies that may have the potential for defeating MANPADS in a layered defense environment.

As a result of this direction, DHS S&T began the Emerging Counter-MANPADS Technologies (ECMT) program in 2006 to evaluate ground-based MANPADS detection and countermeasures solutions. This BAA represents a complimentary effort; the major

HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

thrust of Project CHLOE is to evaluate, develop as required, and demonstrate at the prototype or critical technology level an alternative concept of providing persistent stand-off airborne MANPADS protection for all commercial aircraft within a designated geographic area. This effort will couple proven High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Systems (HAE UAS) with counter-MANPADS technology solutions that prove to be the most promising in defeating the MANPADS threat to commercial aviation. The solutions sought are based on existing systems and component technologies. This program will not undertake the development of new technologies, but will likely require significant modifications of existing sensor technologies to meet the high altitude stand-off performance goals.

The technical approach and solution to the Counter-MANPADS mission may be HAE UAS-borne or hybrid:

1. HAE UAS based in their totality (all Missile Warning Systems (MWS) and countermeasures components onboard one or more HAE UAS);

a. Number of HAE UAS (single or multiple) per geographic coverage area as determined by system capabilities to provide persistent and continuous surveillance and countermeasures to commercial aircraft within designated area;

2. Or hybrid, wherein MWS functionality is provided by airborne HAE UAS networked to countermeasures that are either ground-based or on other aircraft.

HAE UAS-based or hybrid systems must protect aircraft within the air space bounded by the threat envelope (defined as a 3-mile radius around each aircraft operating at or below 18,000 feel AGL) applied to standard approach and take off corridors of commercial aircraft (nominally extending up to 65 miles from airports (along all flight paths).

The Government seeks to achieve very ambitious prototype performance and schedule goals. Performance goals focus on HAE UAS based solutions, though a hybrid of HAE UAS MWS and ground-based Counter-measure (CM) capability may be evaluated. Overall, this program seeks to satisfy the following Technical Objectives:

1. Determine the suitability and interoperability aspects of persistent high altitude stand-off or hybrid Counter-MANPADS systems;

2. Establish effectiveness and minimum event timelines for persistent high altitude stand-off or hybrid Counter-MANPADS systems;

3. Identify multi-function capability of the stand-off or hybrid Counter-MANPADS systems and/or components to support or compliment other DHS surveillance, monitoring, and coordination missions;

4. Determine the suitability and interoperability aspects of persistent, high-altitude, standoff or hybrid surveillance for the protection of the homeland.

5. Determine critical technology gaps to accomplish the persistent Counter-MANPADS mission, and provide a recommended roadmap to develop effective solutions.


The threshold goals and characteristics of the desired prototype systems are:

1. Threat and Coverage: Integrated systems that detect and counter an attack of multiple simultaneously launched generation 1-through-3 MANPADS missiles across the MANPADS threat envelope of a commercial aircraft operating under normal conditions within the U.S.

a. There are currently 517 commercial service airports, which account for 100% of commercial passenger emplanements; 30 Large Hub Primary, 37 Medium Hub Primary, 72 Small Hub Primary, 243 non-hub Primary, and 135 non-hub non-primary. The initial focus of CHLOE will be to evaluate operations around a sub-set of the 35 Operational Evaluation Plan (OEP) airports during normal operating hours, which account for over 70% of commercial operations1. However, many smaller commercial service airports will receive at least partial coverage from CHLOE due to overlapping coverage from the OEP operation areas. For purposes of analysis of HAE UAS-based systems, the airports of interest will be limited to:

i. Denver, CO (DEN)ii. Las Vegas, NV (LAS)

iii. Los Angeles, CA (LAX)iv. Newark, NJ (EWR) v. San Diego, CA (SAN)

vi. Washington (Reagan), DC (DCA)

b. For purposes of HAE UAS-based systems, coverage shall be 360-degrees azimuth constant surveillance of a broad area around each airport including standard approach and departure corridors nominally extending up to 65 miles from the airport (along all flight paths). Detection and countermeasures coverage may encompass the entire geographic area or continuously cover the individual ground threat footprint for each commercial aircraft within that area (3-mile radius around each aircraft that is operating at or below 18,000 feet Above Ground Level (AGL)). This may be accomplished with one or more HAE UASs.

2. Probability of Success: Provide 90% or better probability of success against an attack of multiple generation 1-through-3 MANPADS missiles over the susceptible envelope of a commercial aircraft. (Success means defeating a minimum of two simultaneously launched missiles such that neither strikes an aircraft.)

1 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2007-2012 Report to Congress dated September 29 2006HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

3. Compatibility and Interoperability:

a. For HAE UAS, operate without disruption to aircraft in the air, to aircraft on the ground, to airports, or to civilian and military systems, including, but not limited to, telecommunications, radars, medical equipment, and navigation systems.

b. HAE UAS -based systems must fit within host platform provisions for weight, space, and power, must not cause any electrical, environmental, safety, or operational interference with the UAS, and must provide any required payload command and control and health and status communications links independent of the UAS communications suite (non-systems integrated solution for this CD&D phase). If these capabilities are not met proposed CONOPS must define new requirements for the HAE UAS.

c. In the case of hybrid systems, the UAS-based MWS must be capable of interfacing to both selected ECMT countermeasure concepts; one is based on a high power microwave approach, the other is based on a high energy laser approach.

d. Airborne countermeasures systems, subsystems, or components shall not present any safety issues to airborne aircraft or personnel on the ground.

e. Notification: The system shall provide automated alerts of missile detections and activation of countermeasures to airport, aircraft, and law enforcement personnel; providing less than one false notification per year per geographic coverage area. HAE UAS-borne systems must transmit an Emergency Ground Notification (EGN) signal, including precision location of detected MANPADS launch, to Air Traffic Control (ATC). Provisions should be made to provide reported data to the CBP Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) in Riverside California.

f. Proposed CONOPS must be compatible with the National Airspace System (NAS).

4. Alternate DHS Mission Support: The CHLOE program may lead to further activities centered on the layered defense concept for protecting commercial aviation from the threat of MANPADS. Successful UAS-borne Counter-MANPADS concepts and technologies will be evaluated for transition to development or acquisition programs within the appropriate DHS agencies. Should funding and schedule permit, DHS S&T intends to leverage the CHLOE demonstration UAS platform to demonstrate alternate missions and additional payloads to validate and further the 2004 DHS UAS Applications study. Likely areas for investigation include Aerial Communications Relay and multi-spectral imaging payloads to support persistent border surveillance, maritime surveillance, and disaster relief support. Offerors are encouraged to identify opportunities for utilizing their proposed Counter-


MANPADS payload to support these additional mission areas and/or incorporate their proposed solution into a multi-functional payload.

The focus of CHLOE is on a systems solution, i.e., a fully integrated system of relatively mature technologies that meets the stated technical and interoperability requirements. System-level demonstration is desired, though demonstration supported by test and evaluation may occur at the component or subsystem level.

DHS S&T is soliciting proposals on the above technology areas and operational concepts. Offerors may propose partial solutions in specific technical or operational areas (e.g. HAE UAS borne MWS, missile warning notification system, countermeasures study and roadmap, alternate mission employment, etc) or comprehensive solutions across the entire mission space (i.e. integrated detection and countermeasures). Proposals may include offeror-provided UAS or may request access to Government UAS services; however, any requirements for Government Furnished Services (GFS) will reduce the overall funding available for award under this BAA. Finally, a manned-surrogate high-altitude (capable of operating at greater than 50,000 ft) may be utilized for CHLOE payload demonstration in lieu of an HAE UAS for purposes of risk reduction or significant cost savings; however, the payload design and application must be suitable for employment aboard a Global Hawk or Predator B HAE UAS.

7. Government Representatives -

Science and Technology:

Mr. Kerry D. WilsonProject CHLOE Program ManagerDepartment of Homeland SecurityScience and Technology DirectorateWashington DC, 20528

Business:

Margaret L. “Margo” GravesTeam Lead/Contracting OfficerDepartment of Homeland SecurityScience & Technology AcquisitionsWashington, DC 20528

8. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number - 97.065 9. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Title - Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

10. Additional Background Information -


Technology approaches to counter-MANPADS other than self-protecting aircraft DIRCM systems are in various stages of development and maturity throughout DoD programs. DHS S&T is following such technologies and will make a formal technology readiness level (TRL) assessment of those technologies in terms of their potential application in the civil aviation environment. Non-aircraft-borne countermeasure technologies are estimated to be at TRL6 or TRL7 in accordance with the DHS TRL definitions and are being investigated through the Emerging Counter-MANPADS Technologies (ECMT) assessment. DIRCM and non-DIRCM technologies suitable for employment at the high altitudes and long ranges sought are less mature and estimated to be at a much lower TRL and are the focus of this assessment. This program will not directly assess ground-based systems developed under the ECMT, but may leverage ECMT technologies if a hybrid UAS Missile Warning System (MWS) coupled with a ground-based countermeasure solution emerges as a promising solution. This program is dependent on and will leverage but not assess or develop UAS platforms or technologies.

CHLOE is a Homeland Innovative Prototypical Solution (HIPS) program to demonstrate game changing leaps in payload technologies at the prototype level that can enable the defeat of MANPADS from a persistent, high altitude orbit. This program will determine system-level operational effectiveness, maturity of components, subsystems, software, system approach, and suitability for employing Counter-MANPADS technologies from HAE UAS to provide persistent, broad area protection of commercial aviation. CHLOE may also evaluate a hybrid concept of providing high altitude MANPADS warning networked to promising ground-based countermeasures technologies based on ECMT assessments.

In addition to the BAA effort, the CHLOE program will execute a parallel path for risk reduction and cost management to rapidly modify and prototype an existing two-color infrared (IR) MWS to support a late FY-07 flight demo and evaluation. This effort will modify an existing prototype two-color IR MWS and demonstrate MANPADS detection and warning capability from high altitude and long range. The goal is to demonstrate this sensor on a DoD Global Hawk, DHS Predator B, or manned surrogate by late FY-07 to establish baseline capability of that technology in the CHLOE operating environment. Data and analysis from this effort should be available to offerors selected under this BAA sometime in late FY-07.

The Department of Defense (DoD) is currently addressing some of the issues relating to component and subsystem elements. It is the intention of the CHLOE assessment effort to coordinate with DoD, work with potential vendors to assess the maturity and effectiveness of all relevant technology, apply resources to assess system approaches, and most importantly assess civilian environment interoperability.

A critical element in the demonstration and evaluation of the CHLOE concept will be the availability of and access to an HAE UAS or manned surrogate aircraft capable of operating near or above 60,000 feet. Initial investigation has identified several DoD and DHS platforms and several manned surrogate aircraft suitable for demonstrating the CHLOE concept and payload: Northrop Grumman Global Hawk (Navy and USAF HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

variants), General Atomics Predator B (Customs and Border Protection), Scaled Composites Proteus, and NASA ER-2 or WB-57 aircraft. DHS S&T will coordinate with these agencies to acquire UAS services and system integration engineering support as required.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Total Amount of Funding the Program Office expects to Award through the Announcement:

Although subject to official fiscal appropriation, it is anticipated that the CHLOE program will have approximately $1.7M in FY-07 and $11M in FY-08 for award under this BAA.

Anticipated Number of Awards:

DHS S&T expects to make one or more awards.

Anticipated Award Types:

Anticipated to be in the form of a Cost Reimbursement type contract. However the Government reserves the right to award grants, Cooperative Agreements (CAs), Other Transactions (OTs) Agreements, or interagency agreements to appropriate parties should the situation warrant.

Expected Amounts of Individual Awards (which may be a range):

Awards will typically be in the range from $500,000 to $6,000,000, although lower and higher cost proposals will be considered.

Amount of Funding Per Award, on Average, Experienced in Previous Years:

N/A

Anticipated Start Dates and/or Periods of Performance for New Awards and Renewals:

Proposed work should be structured to have a base period of performance of 24 months or less, but may include multiple-year, phased options that extend beyond the initial period. DHS S&T has funded related information technology development under numerous programs. Proposals that build on current or previous DoD work are encouraged. If Offeror’s are extending work performed under other projects, it must clearly identify the point of departure and what existing work will be brought forward and what new work will be performed under this BAA.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

This BAA is open to ALL responsible sources. HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

Offerors may include single entities or teams from private sector organizations, Government laboratories, airport authorities, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including Department of Energy National Laboratories and Centers, and academic institutions.

Federally Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDCs) are eligible to respond to this BAA, individually or as a team member of an eligible principal Offeror, as so long as they are permitted under a sponsoring agreement between the Government and the specific FFRDC.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Minority Institutions (MI), Small Business concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business concerns, Women-Owned Small Business concerns, Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns, and HUBZone Small Business concerns are encouraged to submit proposals and to join others as team members in submitting proposals. However, no portion of this BAA will be set-aside pursuant to FAR Part 19.502-2.

Independent organizations and teams are encouraged to submit proposals. However, Offerors must be willing to cooperate and exchange software, data and other information in an integrated program with other contractors, as well as with system integrators, selected by DHS S&T.

Organizational Conflict of Interest

Organizational Conflict of Interest issues will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; as outlined below. Offerors who have existing contract(s) to provide scientific, engineering, technical and/or administrative support directly to DHS S&T will receive particular scrutiny. (a) Determination. The Government has determined that this effort may result in an actual or potential conflict of interest, or may provide one or more Offerors with the potential to attain an unfair competitive advantage.

(b) If any such conflict of interest is found to exist, the Contracting Officer may (1) disqualify the Offeror, or (2) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the United States to contract with the Offeror and include the appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict in the contract awarded. After discussion with the Offeror, the Contracting Officer may determine that the actual conflict cannot be avoided, neutralized, mitigated, or otherwise resolved to the satisfaction of the Government, and the Offeror may be found ineligible for award.

(c) Disclosure: The Offeror must represent, as part of its proposal and to the best of its knowledge that: (1) It is not aware of any facts which create any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest relating to the award of this contract; or (2) It has included information in its proposal, providing all current information bearing on the HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

existence of any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest, and has included the mitigation plan in accordance with paragraph (d) of this provision.

(d) Mitigation/Waiver. If an Offeror with a potential or actual conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage believes it can be mitigated, neutralized, or avoided, the Offeror shall submit a mitigation plan to the Contracting Officer for review. Award of a contract where an actual or potential conflict of interest exists shall not occur before Government approval of the mitigation plan.

(e) Other Relevant Information: In addition to the mitigation plan, the Contracting Officer may require further relevant information from the Offeror. The Contracting Officer will use all information submitted by the Offeror, and any other relevant information known to DHS, to determine whether an award to the Offeror may take place, and whether the mitigation plan adequately neutralizes or mitigates the conflict.

(f) Corporation Change. The successful Offeror shall inform the Contracting Officer within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of any corporate mergers, acquisitions, and/or divestures that may affect this provision.

(g) Flow-down. The contractor shall insert the substance of this clause in each first tier subcontract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Application and Submission Process -

Submitting a response to this BAA:

Submissions will not be accepted from organizations that have not registered. Any organization that wishes to participate in this solicitation must register at http://www.hsarpabaa.com. To begin the process, go to http://www.hsarpabaa.com and select BAA07-04 from the list on the left side of the screen then select the appropriate topic area. Upon proper selection, buttons for registration and submission will appear. Select the appropriate registration button and fill in the requisite fields then submit your registration for White Paper submission. Once the registration process is complete registrants should receive a control identification number via email. This control number is needed to begin the White Paper submission process. To submit your White Paper select the appropriate submission button, fill out the requisite fields, upload your files and then submit. Users will receive confirmation of their submission via email. You may revise your White Paper submission until the deadline. Failure to submit a White Paper will disqualify an Offeror from consideration for submitting a Full Proposal. Only one (1) White Paper per Offeror is allowed.

In teaming situations, the lead organization must remain the same on both the White Paper and, if selected, the Full Proposal. Any Full Proposal submitted by entities who were not the prime for the White Paper submission will be considered non-responsive. HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

http://www.hsarpabaa.com/

http://www.hsarpabaa.com/

Full Proposals will be delivered via upload in accordance with instructions provided during registration. As with the White Papers, only unclassified volumes are to be submitted via the website. For classified submissions, see Paragraph 5 of Section IV below for handling instructions; additionally, Offerors should submit to the website a placeholder portable document format (PDF) file consisting of a single page with the words “Classified Volume Forthcoming” in the center of the page.

The Proposal submissions will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 15.207, applicable law, and DHS regulations. Offerors are expected to appropriately mark each page of their submission that contains proprietary information.

White Papers –

White Papers are required prior to submitting a Full Proposal.

The due date for White Papers is no later than 4:30 PM (Local Eastern Time) on 04/25/2007. Initial DHS S&T evaluation of the White Papers will be issued via E-mail notification on or about 05/11/2007. Detailed technical and cost proposals will be subsequently encouraged from those Offerors whose proposed technologies have been identified through the above-referenced E-mail as being of “particular value” to DHS. However, any such encouragement does not assure a subsequent award. Full Proposals will not be considered under this BAA unless a White Paper was received before the White Paper due date specified above. Offerors not selected to submit a Full Proposal will not be debriefed. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE.

Full Proposals - The due date for receipt of Full Proposals is 4:30 PM (Local Eastern Time) on 06/08/2007. It is anticipated that final selections will be made by 06/29/2007. Full Proposals WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED after the published due date. As soon as the final proposal evaluation process is completed, the Offeror will be notified via email of its selection or non-selection for an award. Proposals exceeding the page limit may not be evaluated.

2. Content and Format of White Papers/Full Proposals -

White Paper Format

White papers may include narrative, pictures, figures, tables, and charts in a legible size, and must be accompanied by a one-page quad chart.

Paper Size – 8.5 x 11 inch paper Margins – 1” inch Spacing – single or double-spaced Font – Times New Roman, no smaller than 12 point. Text embedded within

graphics or tables in the body of the white paper or the quad chart may not be smaller than 10-point.


Number of Pages – No more than 21 single-sided pages (excluding cover page and resumes). White Papers exceeding the page limit may not be evaluated.

Copies – A White Paper shall consist of ONE electronic file in portable document format (PDF), readable by IBM-compatible personal computers (PCs). The quad chart must be submitted in the same file as the White Paper. The file size must be no more than 10 Megabytes (MB). Do not include a coversheet with an unclassified white paper. A coversheet will be automatically generated for submitted White Papers using the information provided during registration. If a cover sheet is submitted with the unclassified White Paper, it will be counted toward the 21-page White Paper limit. A coversheet is required for classified submissions and does not count toward the 21-page limit. Follow the instructions in Paragraph 5 of Section IV for submitting classified White Papers.

Quad Chart Format - Quad Charts shall not use any font smaller than 12-point, except in graphics or tables, which may use 10-point fonts, and shall be organized as follows:

Full Proposal Format – Volume 1 - Technical and Volume 2 - Cost Proposal

ONLY OFFERORS WHO SUBMIT A RESPONSIVE WHITE PAPER WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR FULL PROPOSALS. THE GOVERNMENT WILL ADVISE IN WRITING THOSE OFFERORS SELECTED FOR FULL PROPOSALS. FULL PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM ANY OFFERORS OTHER THAN THOSE INVITED TO SUBMIT FULL PROPOSALS.

Full Proposals will consist of two volumes: a Technical volume and a Cost Proposal volume. The unclassified volumes must be submitted via the website, as with the White HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

BAA Number: ****************** Offeror Name:Title: (Brief/Short Title to Describe Offeror’s Proposed Effort) Date:

Photograph or artist’s concept:Provide a simple but sufficiently detailed graphic that will convey the main idea of the final capability/use/deployment of the prototype, and its technological methodology

Proposed Technical Approach:How will the problem be approached? Describe tasks to be performed. Describe any ongoing related efforts by the offeror. Describe the technology involved and how it will be used to solve the problem. Describe key technical challenges.

Technology Readiness Level:Provide information on the current state of the proposed technology in terms of the DHS (S&T) TRL Chart. Identify strengths and weaknesses relative to the TRL Chart.

Schedule, Cost, Deliverables & Contact Info:Summarize key schedule, cost, and deliverable elements and full contact information for the offeror, including phone numbers and email

Paper submission. Classified volumes must follow the same submission process as outlined for the white paper in Paragraph 5 of Section IV; additionally, Offerors should submit to the website a placeholder pdf file consisting of a single page with the words “Classified Volume Forthcoming” in the center of the page.

Paper Size – 8.5 x 11 inch paper Margins – 1” inch Spacing – single or double-spaced Font – Times New Roman, 12 point. Text embedded within graphics or tables in

the body of the white paper or the quad chart may not be smaller than 10-point. Number of Pages – Volume 1: No more than 60 single-sided pages. Full proposals

exceeding the page limit may not be evaluated. Volume 2 has no page limitations. The cover page, table of contents, and resumes are excluded from the page limitations.

Copies – A proposal shall consist of ONE electronic file in portable document format (PDF), readable by IBM-compatible personal computers (PCs). The file size must be no more than 10 Megabytes (MB). Do not include a coversheet with an unclassified proposal. A coversheet will be automatically generated for submitted proposals using the information provided during registration. A coversheet is required for classified submissions and does not count toward the page limit. Follow the instructions in Paragraph 5 of Section IV for submitting classified proposals.

White Paper Content

White Papers should capture the essence of a proposal and are required for two purposes. First, they give the Offeror an opportunity to obtain feedback from DHS S&T on their planned technology development without having to go to the expense and effort of writing a complete proposal. Second, the Government will evaluate the White Papers as described in Section V to determine those submittals worthy of a full proposal.

Offerors must submit a White Paper that describes its respective technology, planned innovations, and how they relate to the DHS S&T TRL Chart; their concept of operation for deployment and employment; provide a demonstration plan; and show how they would transition their technology to accomplish deployment, including the identification of risks to deployment. The Offeror shall identify existing data, components, subsystem, system hardware and software that define system specifications and CONOPS. The Offeror shall also identify gaps in data that must be filled before performing a system demonstration and must develop a T&E plan to fill these data gaps. T&E efforts shall focus on resolving effectiveness issues, compatibility issues, and interoperability issues with commercial aircraft, with airport systems, and with systems within the vicinity of the airport.

Estimates of deployment, operation, and support costs are sought, but only in terms of rough orders of magnitude. Offerors demonstrating through their white papers the technologies most able to meet the performance goals and suitability , have potential for deployment within 3-5 years, and best meet the criteria shown in Section V, will be HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

selected for full proposals. The full proposals are to address the planning and execution of combined contractor-government test and evaluation activities to demonstrate performance and suitability within the commercial aviation environment.

White Papers shall be succinct and shall include, as a minimum, the following:

Cover Page – The Cover Page shall be labeled “PROPOSAL WHITE PAPER”, and shall include the BAA number, proposed title, Offeror’s administrative and technical points of contact, with telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and Internet addresses, and shall be signed by an authorized officer.

A quad chart (see above).

Technical Concept – A description of the technology innovation and technical risk areas. Areas which should be addressed include:1. A top-level narrative summary of the balance of the content of the document

(not to exceed ½ page).

2. A system level diagram illustrating core technology, supporting technology components, interfaces to UAS physical, power, and communications systems, physical protection components, and any other elements necessary to deploy and operate a full-up system.

3. A description of the core technology (e.g., multi-spectral IR, radar, high-energy laser, radio frequency energy, or some other technology), what unique capabilities that technology brings to bear on the problem of defeating MANPADS from an overhead HAE UAS, and any alternate mission applications or synergies of their proposed approach.

4. A description of all supporting technology required to complete and operate a full-up system, such as, but not limited to, power supplies/sources, detection and tracking sub-systems, telecommunications.

5. A discussion of how the Prototype Performance Goals in the Research Opportunities Description will be met, including the basis for determining effectiveness against the threat.

6. A baseline assessment of the offeror’s technology readiness level as of the date of the white paper submittal as it relates to the DHS(S&T) TRL Chart, including those elements of the relevant TRL that are fully met, partially met, or not met.

7. A description of any supporting technology in terms of whether or not the offeror is dependent upon others to provide that technology or expertise in order to be able to constitute a full-up operational system.

Operational Concept - A description of the project objectives, the concept of operation for the new capabilities to be delivered, and the expected operational


performance improvements. The concept should include interaction with and interfacing to HAE UAS platform(s), infrastructure, and operations over a commercial airport; personnel manning of the system during normal and maintenance operations; maintainability and supportability concepts; any physical protection measures to be employed, and other factors deemed relevant by the offeror. A discussion of the suitability of the technology and concept of operations within the context of the civilian aviation environment should be included.

Operational Utility Demonstration Plan –A plan for demonstration (including goals and metrics) to be accomplished in a combined contractor-government effort to assess the offerors technical solution and CONOPS to meet the prototype performance goals established in the Research Opportunity Description.

Deliverables – A list of any deliverables for the effort. The offeror may recommend a preferred format for each deliverable, but the Government will determine the final format. For each effort, monthly status reports will be due within one week after the last day of each month and comprehensive deliverables are due within 30 days of the conclusion of development and testing milestones. For planning purposes, the following minimum deliverables will be required under traditional procurement contracts or other transaction agreement (OTA) agreements awarded to those Offerors whose Full Proposals are selected for award:

a. A Master Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)i. Schedule with major activities, program reviews, test or

demonstration readiness reviews, test or demonstration events, data analysis results reviews, and payment milestones

ii. Resources (personnel, facilities, test or demonstration assets, needed government facilities or services)

b. Program Reviewsi. Initial Program Review (program kick-off)

ii. Mid-term Program Review #1 (equivalent to PDR)iii. Mid-term Program Review #2 (equivalent to CDR)iv. Demonstration Readiness Reviewv. Close-out Program Review

c. Concepts of Operation—how will the systems be deployed, operated, protected, maintained, and otherwise supported to provide protection during all hours that the designated airports are conducting flight operations

d. Suitability & Interoperability Assessments—details on the suitability and interoperability of the systems in National Airspace and in the commercial aviation environment

e. Program Cost Analyses—development, production, deployment, operations, and support costs, assuming an operational life of ten years and:


I. Deployment at six U.S. airports: DEN, LAS, LAX, EWR, SAN, and DCA;

II. Deployment at 35 OEP airportsf. Demonstration Master Plan—to demonstrate the offeror’s critical

technologies, as well as mitigate gaps in capability or data gaps that must be filled before performing a system demonstration.. A final technical report will be required.

g. Identification of hardware and software to be delivered under the contract.

Management Plan –A description of the offeror’s organization, team members, if any, qualifications to perform the program, lines of authority, and a summary of the management approach. Include short resumes of principle investigators and partnering arrangements. Also include a list of any Government Furnished Equipment or Services anticipated and any associated Security Plans.

Costs – A one-page summary of costs segregated by tasks.

Full Proposal Content

Volume 1: Technical Proposal

Volume I of the Full Proposal shall be in the form of a Technical Volume not to exceed 60 pages and a cost proposal overview.

The Technical Proposal shall cover all elements of the White Paper. In particular, the Technical Proposal must cover the following points in more detail:

Cover Page: This should include the words “Technical Proposal” and the following:

1) BAA number;2) Title of Proposal;3) Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors, if

applicable;4) Technical contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address);5) Administrative/business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic

mail address); and,6) Duration of effort (separately identify the basic effort and any options)

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary and Technical Discussion: Summarize the technology you are proposing and the expected improvements to commercial aircraft safety from attack by MANPADS. Provide technical assessments and recommendations including a description of the core technology and justification for its TRL level, and a description of how the Prototype


Performance Goals in the Research Opportunities Description will be met. Also provide a description of any known shortcomings or risks relative to the technology or its deployment in the commercial aviation environment, including hazardous conditions.

Concept of Operation: A summary of the way in which the proposal’s product(s) would support DHS efforts to protect commercial aircraft from MANPADS in an operational context. Include quantitative specifications for how the products will improve operational performance, a description of anticipated effectiveness of approach including sources of data that substantiate effectiveness claims and identification of data gaps, a description of the suitability of the technology and concept of operations within the context of the civilian aviation environment including sources of data that substantiate suitability claims and identification of data gaps, and an overview of how the offeror would transition the technology to a fully deployed configuration.

Include a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of the cost to acquire, deploy, and operate for 10 years, assuming a full operational capability date of 1 October 2010. For ground-based system components (hybrid solution), the ROM shall cover the six airports identified in the Research Opportunities Description. Provide the basis for the ROM.

Statement of Work: A Statement of Work (SOW) clearly detailing the scope and objectives of the effort and the technical approach. It is anticipated that the proposed SOW will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant award instrument. To this end, such proposals must include a severable self-standing SOW without any proprietary restrictions, which can be attached to the contract or agreement award. The SOW shall not exceed 10 pages and is to be provided in the offeror’s format, but must include as a minimum:

a. Background (lay the foundation for the proposed effort)

b. Technical Performance requirements (should mirror/address the Research Opportunities Description of this BAA) and may include additional, relevant performance metrics

c. Management Performance requirements (how the offeror’s management of the program will be established and against which metrics the performance of that management will be assessed)

d. Security (address applicable elements of national security, physical security, and operational security)

e. Facilities (identify offeror’s facilities to be utilized in the performance of the proposed work, plus any Government Furnished Facilities or Equipment)


f. Data/Deliverable requirements (as a minimum, address the requirements of Section IV.2 of this BAA; identify any required Government Furnished Information)

Project Schedule and Milestones: A top-level schedule with recommended program reviews, payment milestones, test events, and deliverables.

Assertion of Data Rights : Include here a summary of any assertions to any technical data or computer software that will be developed or delivered under any resultant award. This includes any assertions to pre-existing results, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. Any rights asserted in other parts of the proposal that would impact the rights in this section must be cross-referenced. If less than unlimited rights in any Data delivered under the resultant award are asserted, the Offeror must explain how these rights in the Data will affect its ability to deliver research data, subsystems and toolkits for integration as set forth below. Additionally, Offerors must explain how the program goals are achievable in light of these 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.

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall identify all technical data or computer software that the Offeror asserts will be furnished to the Government with restrictions on access, use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure. Offeror's pre-award identification shall be submitted as an attachment to its offer and shall contain the following information:

(1) Statement of Assertion. Include the following statement: “The Offeror asserts for itself, or the persons identified below, that the Government's rights to access, use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose only the following technical data or computer software should be restricted:”

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

(3) Detailed description of the asserted restrictions. For each of the technical data or computer software identified above in paragraph (2), identify the following information:


(i) Asserted rights. Identify the asserted rights for the technical data or computer software.

(ii) Copies of negotiated, commercial, and other non-standard licenses. Offeror shall attach to its offer for each listed item copies of all proposed negotiated license(s), Offeror's standard commercial license(s), and any other asserted restrictions other than government purpose rights; limited rights; restricted rights; rights under prior government contracts, including SBIR data rights for which the protection period has not expired; or government’s minimum rights.

(iii) Specific basis for assertion. Identify the specific basis for the assertion. For example:

(A) Development at private expense, either exclusively or partially. For technical data, development refers to development of the item, component, or process to which the data pertains. For computer software, development refers to the development of the software. Indicate whether development was accomplished exclusively or partially at private expense.

(B) Rights under a prior government contract, including SBIR data rights for which the protection period has not expired.

(C) Standard commercial license customarily provided to the public.

(D) Negotiated license rights.

(iv) Entity asserting restrictions. Identify the corporation, partnership, individual, or other person, as appropriate, asserting the restrictions.

Previously delivered technical data or computer software. The Offeror shall identify the technical data or computer software that are identical or substantially similar to technical data or computer software that the Offeror has produced for, delivered to, or is obligated to deliver to the Government under any contract or subcontract. The Offeror need not identify commercial technical data or computer software delivered subject to a standard commercial license.

Estimated Cost of Development. The estimated cost of development for that technical data or computer software to be delivered with less than Unlimited Rights.

Supplemental information. When requested by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to evaluate the Offeror’s assertions. Sufficient information should include, but is not limited to, the following:


(1) The contract number under which the data or software were produced;

(2) The contract number under which, and the name and address of the organization to whom, the data or software were most recently delivered or will be delivered; and

(3) Identification of the expiration date for any limitations on the Government’s rights to access, use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose the data or software, when applicable.

Ineligibility for award. An Offeror's failure to submit or complete the identifications and assertions required by this provision with its offer may render the offer ineligible for award.

This section shall be severable, i.e., it will begin on a new page and the following section shall begin on a new page. It is anticipated that the proposed Assertion of Data Rights will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant award instrument. To this end, such proposals must include a severable self-standing Assertion of Data Rights without any proprietary restrictions, which can be attached to the contract or agreement award.

Deliverables: A detailed description of the results and products to beDelivered, along with suggested due dates (calendar days after the effective date of award.

This section shall be severable, i.e., it will begin on a new page and the following section shall begin on a new page. It is anticipated that the proposed detailed list and description of all deliverables will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant award instrument. To this end, such proposals must include a severable self-standing detailed list and description of all deliverables without any proprietary restrictions, which can be attached to the contract or agreement award.

Operational Utility: A detailed plan for assessing the operational utility of the key products of this effort, including proposed metrics. Include in the description of the demonstration plan a combined contractor-government effort that will fill data gaps, verify and validate the maturity level of the technology and ability of the offeror to meet the prototype performance goals established in the Research Opportunity Description.

Qualifications : A discussion of previous accomplishments and work in this, or closely related, areas, and the qualifications of the investigators. Key personnel resumes shall be attached to the proposal and will not count toward the page limitations.


Management Approach: A discussion of the overall approach to the management of this effort, including brief discussions of the total organization, use of personnel, project/function/subcontractor relationships, government research interfaces, and planning, scheduling and control practice. Identify which personnel and subcontractors (if any) will be involved. Include a description of the facilities that are required for the proposed effort with a description of any Government Furnished Equipment/Hardware/Software/Information required, by version and/or configuration.

Small Business Considerations – If the prime Offeror is a large business, a commitment of the Offeror to the use of small business concerns.

Cost proposal summary: Provide a top level overview of the Volume 2 Cost proposal.

VOLUME 2: Cost Proposal

The Cost Proposal shall consist of a cover page and two parts, Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 will provide a detailed cost breakdown of all costs by cost category by calendar/fiscal year and Part 2 will cost breakdown by task/sub-task using the same task numbers in the Statement of Work. Options must be separately priced.

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

BAA number; Title of Proposal; Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors, if applicable; Technical contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address) Administrative/business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail

address) and; Duration of effort (separately price out the basic effort and any options)

Part 1: Detailed breakdown of all costs by cost category by calendar/fiscal year. The offeror should provide a total estimated price for major demonstrations and other activities associated with the program, including cost sharing, if any. The offeror should 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. Any cost sharing estimates should include the type of cost share, i.e. cash or in-kind. If in-kind is proposed, the offeror should provide a discussion of how the cost share was valued.

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


Indirect Costs – Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General & Administrative (Expenses), Cost of Money, etc. (Must show base amount and rate)

Travel – Number of trips, destinations, durations, etc. Subcontract – A cost proposal as detailed as the Offeror’s cost proposal will be

required to be submitted by the subcontractor. The subcontractor’s cost proposal can be provided in a sealed envelope with the Offeror’s cost proposal or will be requested from the subcontractor at a later date;

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

Materials - Total direct material that will be acquired and/or consumed during the period of performance should be specifically itemized with costs or estimated costs. Where possible, indicate purchasing method, (Competition, engineering estimate, market survey, etc.). Limit this information to only major items of material (>$25,000) and how the estimated expense was derived. Include major facility requirements such as test ranges or live fire demonstrations. These requirements may address specific facilities, but should also provide details of facility capability requirements and estimates of total facility occupancy and test time. At its discretion, DHS(S&T) may choose to make bulk purchases of facility time in one or more major test facilities and apportion that test time to program participants.

Other Directs Costs, particularly any proposed items of equipment or facilities. List the item, the estimated cost, and basis for the estimate. Equipment and facilities generally must be furnished by the contractor/recipient. Justifications must be provided when Government funding for such items is sought

Fee/Profit including fee percentage.

Part 2: Cost breakdown by task/sub-task using the same task numbers in the Statement of Work.

3. Significant Dates and Times -

DHS S&T will review all White Papers in accordance with the below “Anticipated Schedule of Events” using the Evaluation Criteria described in Section V. After the White Paper review, DHS S&T will notify Offerors, electronically or in writing, at its discretion, either allowing or not allowing submission of a Full Proposal based upon that review.

DHS S&T plans to review Full Proposals in accordance with the below “Anticipated Schedule of Events”. Full Proposals will be evaluated by a review panel using the criteria specified under Evaluation Criteria in Section V. Following that review, Offerors will be notified whether or not their proposal has been selected for negotiation. Multiple awards may be made under this BAA.

The Government reserves the right to fund none, some, or all of the proposals received. It is the intention upon completion of proposal evaluation to notify Offerors of an initiation of negotiation for awards or rejection of their proposal. Awards will be made based on the evaluation, funds availability, and other programmatic considerations. HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

Anticipated Schedule of Events *Event Date (MM/DD/YEAR) Time (Local

Eastern Time)White Paper Due Date 04/25/2007 4:30 PMNotification of Initial Evaluations of White Papers

05/11/2007 N/A

Full Proposal Due Date 06/08/2007 4:30 PMNotification of Selection for Award 06/29/2007 N/AContract Award 08/17/2007 N/AKickoff Meeting 09/17/2007 TBD

* These dates are estimates as of the date of this announcement.

4. Submission of Late White Papers and Full Proposals –

White Papers and Full Proposals WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED after the published due dates.

1. Address for the Submission of Classified White Papers and Full Proposals –

CLASSIFIED SUBMITTALS CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED VIA THE WEB SITE. Regardless, the submitter must first register online following the registration instructions provided in Section IV and get a registration number. Submitters must print out the registration form and attach it as a coversheet to the classified submittal located after the classification coversheet. The classified submittal must be submitted via proper classified courier or proper classified mailing procedures as described in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). Offerors may view the NISPOM document online at http://www.dss.mil/isec/nispom.htm. Classified submittals must include ten printed copies and one electronic copy on compact disc recordable (CD-R) media (do not use re-writable media (CD-RW/RW-/RW+)). Each copy must be accompanied by the coversheet, which does not count towards the page limitations described in Section IV.

Classified documents MUST be received by the applicable due date and time.

Classified proposals can be delivered by courier to:

Director of SecurityDepartment of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate1120 Vermont Avenue NWRoom 10-112Washington, DC 20005

Electronic copies can be emailed to:


http://www.dss.mil/isec/nispom.htm

[email protected]

NOTE: Please send an unclassified alert email to [email protected] before emailing classified.

Classification does not eliminate the requirement for offerors to comply with all instructions and deadlines in this BAA.

6. Further Assistance Needed for this BAA

The applicable electronic address for all inquiries for this BAA is: [email protected].

V. EVALUATION INFORMATION

1. Evaluation Criteria –

a. White Papers - After the White Paper evaluation, DHS S&T will promptly notify those Offerors selected to submit a Full Proposal. Due to the large number of white papers typically submitted, DHS S&T will not debrief Offerors not selected for Full Proposals. Selected Offerors will be given 28 days from notification to submit a Full Proposal. The notification letter will provide the specific deadline for submitting a Full Proposal, which should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of this BAA. The evaluation of White Papers will be accomplished through an independent technical review using the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of relative importance.

Criterion I: Ability to meet performance goalsWhite Papers will be evaluated for demonstrating current or projected ability to meet the performance goals set forth in the Research Opportunity Description, with the exception of Compatibility and Interoperability, which will be evaluated separately under Criteria III and carry the same weight as all the rest of the Research Opportunity Description performance goals. While satisfaction of all performance goals through an integrated solution is desired, consideration will be given to white papers that demonstrate significant potential to dramatically advance particular technical challenges (e.g. all-weather MWS, off-axis countermeasures, ability to interface to ECMT solutions, multiple surveillance capabilities, etc).

Criterion II: Technological Advancement and InnovationEach White Paper will be evaluated against the HIPS objective “to demonstrate game-changing leaps” in payload technologies at the prototype level that further the concept of persistent, off-board, all-weather*, all-axis missile detection, warning, and countermeasures, as well as multi-function capability of components, subsystem or system. Those demonstrating the greatest advances


mailto:[email protected]



in relevant technology maturity during the course of the performance period will score highest.

*All weather in which aircraft are operating out of civil airports.

Criterion III: Suitability for the civil aviation environmentWhite Papers will be evaluated in terms of the compatibility and interoperability of the proposed technology and associated concept of operations in the context of their compatibility with the HAE UAS platform and environment as well as their suitability within the civil aviation environment and National Airspace System (NAS). In particular, proposed solutions must operate without disruption to the host platform, without disruption to aircraft in the air, to aircraft on the ground, to airports, or to civilian and military systems, including, but not limited to, telecommunications, radars, medical equipment, and navigation systems.

Criterion IV: Demonstration and evaluation planWhite papers will be evaluated for their demonstration and evaluation plan such that it will allow quantification of their ability to achieve the stated performance, interoperability and compatibility goals and suitability of their proposed solutions in the context of both the selected UAS platform and the civil aviation environment.

Criterion V: Completeness and complianceWhite Papers will be evaluated on the veracity and the degree to which all other elements of Paragraph 2 of Section IV (Content and Format of White Papers and Full Proposals) have been addressed, as well as the requirements for compliant submittals.

Criterion VI: Relative affordabilityWhite Papers will be evaluated on the affordability of proposed development and demonstration cost estimates, including the requirements for GFE and/or GFS.


b. Full Proposals - Generally, Full Proposals will expand on every topic summarized in the White Papers. Therefore, the evaluation of Full Proposals will be very similar, with the notable differences being the cost proposals, which will be evaluated for cost realism, and expansion on the topic of the Offeror’s capability to perform. The evaluation of Full Proposals will be accomplished through an independent technical review of each criterion using the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of relative importance.

Criterion I: Ability to meet performance goalsSame criterion as for White Papers.

Criterion II: Technological Advancement and InnovationSame criterion as for White Papers.

Criterion III: Suitability for the civil aviation environmentSame criterion as for White Papers.

Criterion IV: Cost; including cost realism and reasonableness

Full Proposals will be evaluated for price/cost realism, reasonableness, and overall best value to the government. Members of the Evaluation Team may presume that the technical approach provided by the Offeror serves as a rationale for the labor mix and labor hours used.

Criterion V: Technology maturation planFull Proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror’s concept of maturing the technology to a deployable system, either fully integrated onto a persistent stand-off UAS platform or a hybrid UAS MWS/ground based countermeasures system.

Criterion VI: Demonstration and evaluation planSame criterion as for White Papers.

Criterion VII: Capability (Past Performance)Full Proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror’s capability to perform the proposed work and history of performance of the Offeror and any team members in developing and testing related technologies. This factor includes the skills and experience of the proposed team as well as the proposed facilities to accomplish the work.

Criterion VIII: Life cycle support requirementsFull proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror’s identification of requirements for providing life cycle support: either fully integrated onto a persistent stand-


off UAS platform or a hybrid UAS MWS/ground based countermeasures system.

Criterion IX: Completeness and complianceFull Proposals will be evaluated on the veracity and the degree to which all other elements of Paragraph 2 of Section IV (Content and Format of White Papers and Full Proposals) have been addressed, as well as the requirements for compliant submittals.

2. Evaluation Panel -

All properly submitted White Papers and Full Proposals that conform to the BAA requirements will be evaluated by a review panel comprised of Government employees and Government contractors specially selected to eliminate potential conflicts of interest. All Government personnel are bound by public law to protect proprietary information. The Government contractor personnel will have signed, and will be subject to, the terms and conditions of non-disclosure agreements.

Although there is an option on the HSARPA website for offerors to have their White Paper or Proposal reviewed exclusively by Government personnel, this option is not available for this solicitation. Any proposal submitted by an offeror selecting this option will not be evaluated and their proposal will be deleted and/or returned without review.

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Administrative Requirements –

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code – The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this announcement is 541690 with a small business size standard of $6.5M.

CCR - Successful Offerors not already registered in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) will be required to register in CCR prior to award of any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction agreement. Information regarding CCR registration is available at http://www.ccr.gov/.

Certifications – In accordance with FAR 4.1201, prospective Offerors for contracts, and other transaction agreements involving prototypes (Section 845), shall complete the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) at http://orca.bpn.gov. Offerors should make mention of its ORCA completion in its proposal, and provide its “Certification Validity” period. Successful Offerors will be provided additional information with regards to certification for grants, cooperative agreements, or other transaction agreements (other than for prototypes) proposals.


http://orca.bpn.gov/

http://www.ccr.gov/

Subcontracting Plans - Successful contract proposals that exceed $550,000, submitted by all but small business concerns, will be required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, prior to award.

2. Objections-

Any objections to the terms of this solicitation or to the conduct of receipt, evaluation, or award of agreements must be presented in writing within 10 calendar days of (1) the release of this solicitation or (2) the date the objector knows or should have known the basis for its objection. Objections should be provided in letter format, clearly stating that it is an objection to this solicitation or to the conduct of the evaluation or award of an agreement and providing a clear, detailed, and factual statement of the basis for objection.

Failure to comply with these directions is a basis for summary dismissal of the objection. Mail objections to:

U. S. Department of Homeland SecurityATTN: Office of Procurement OperationsMargaret L. GravesTeam Lead/Contracting OfficerScience & Technology Acquisitions7th & D Streets, Room 3051245 Murray Lane, SW Bldg. 410Washington, DC 20528

3. Reporting -

The following minimum deliverables will be required under traditional procurement contracts or other transactions agreements awarded to those offerors whose Full Proposals are selected for award:

Monthly Program Report

Brief narrative reports will be electronically submitted to the Program Manager within one week after the last day of each month (not more than two pages). These reports will describe the previous calendar month’s activity, technical progress achieved against goals, difficulties encountered, recovery plans (if needed), explicit plans for the next calendar month, and financial expenditures (including expenditures during the past calendar month period plus cumulative expenditures, and projected expenditures for the coming calendar month).

Final Technical Report

For a final report, each selected Offeror will provide a technical report of work performed during the period of performance, delivered no later than the last day of the period of performance. The final report will be a cumulative, stand-alone document that describes HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

the work of the entire test and evaluation period leading up to it. It shall detail how the design prototype was refined or otherwise prepared for the test and evaluation program and, if applicable, why such refinements or preparations were undertaken. It must include any technical data gathered, such as measurements taken, models developed, simulation results, and formulations developed. The final report will include a summary of all performance goals versus performance achieved during the program (either measured or otherwise substantiated). The final report will discuss all variances from the performance goals versus performance achieved, including reasons or theories for variances. If applicable, provide a discussion of how the Offeror might meet any unmet performance goals under a future effort. This final report should also include “lessons learned” from the effort, recommendations for future research, development, or testing that would lead to success in meeting the performance goals. The final report shall provide a comprehensive and detailed account of all funds expended.

4. Project Meetings & Reviews

Program status reviews may also be held to provide a forum for reviews of the latest results from experiments and any other incremental progress towards the major demonstrations. These meetings will be held at various sites throughout the country. For costing purposes, Offerors should assume that 40% of these meetings will be at or near DHS S&T, Washington DC and 60% at other contractor or government facilities. Interim meetings are likely, but these will be accomplished via video telephone conferences, telephone conferences, or via web-based collaboration tools.

5. Additional Deliverables

Performers should define additional program-specific deliverables as appropriate for the proposed approach. The Government may describe additional deliverables at the time full proposals are requested.

VII. OTHER INFORMATION

1. Government Property, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Facilities

The Government may provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Resources (GFR), Information (GFI), and/or Services (GFS) under the terms of each negotiated contract or agreement. GFE, GFR, GFI, and/or GFS requested by an offeror must be factored into the offeror’s project cost. Each Offeror must provide a very specific description of any equipment/hardware that it needs to acquire to perform the work. This description should indicate whether or not each particular piece of equipment/hardware will be included as part of a deliverable item under the resulting award. Also, this description should identify the component, nomenclature, and configuration of the equipment/hardware that it proposes to purchase for this effort. It is the Government’s desire to have the Contractor purchase the equipment/hardware for deliverable items under their contract. The purchase on a direct reimbursement basis of special test equipment or other equipment that is not included in a deliverable item will be evaluated for allowability on a case-by-case basis. HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

Maximum use of Government integration, test, and experiment facilities is encouraged in each of the Offeror’s proposals.

Government research facilities and operational military units may be available and should be considered as potential government furnished equipment/facilities. These facilities and resources are of high value and some are in constant demand by multiple programs. It is unlikely that all facilities would be used for the Project CHLOE. The use of these facilities and resources will be negotiated as the program unfolds. Offerors should explain which of these facilities they recommend and why.

2. Security Classification

In order to facilitate intra-program collaboration and technology transfer, the Government will attempt to enable technology developers to work at the unclassified level to the maximum extent possible. Integrators and Experiment Planners will likely be required to work at the secret level.

If developers use unclassified data in their deliveries and demonstrations regarding a potential classified project, they should use methods and conventions consistent with those used in classified environments. Such conventions will permit the various subsystems and the final system to be more adaptable in accommodating classified data in the transition system.

If during the performance of the effort, the Contractor may be required to have access to, and may be required to receive, generate, and store information classified to the level of (SECRET or TOP SECRET). For personnel, a minimum of a (SECRET or TOP SECRET) clearance is required. Any Contractor facilities used in support of this contract must be granted (SECRET or TOP SECRET) facility clearances and have the capability to store material classified up to and including (SECRET or TOP SECRET). A DD Form 254 will be required prior to access or production of any classified information. Additionally, the Contractor is required to safeguard the information labeled as proprietary.

Any security concerns should be addressed to:

Christopher FeatherstonDirector of Security Science & Technology DirectorateDepartment of Homeland [email protected] 202-254-6117(Office)202-254-5783(Fax)

3. Information for White Paper and Full Proposal Respondents

This BAA is for planning purposes only and shall not be construed as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any products or services. No entitlement to payment of direct or HSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33


indirect costs or charges by the government will arise as a result of submission of responses to this BAA and the government’s use of such information. Respondents to this BAA may be requested to provide additional information based on their submittals. Unnecessarily elaborate responses containing extensive marketing materials are not desired.

4. SAFETY Act

Congress enacted the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of2002 (the “SAFETY Act”) as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The SAFETYAct provides limitations on the potential liability of those firms that develop and providequalified anti-terrorism technologies. DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate, actingthrough its Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, encourages the development anddeployment of anti-terrorism technologies by making available the SAFETY Act’ssystem of “risk management” and “liability management.” Offerors submitting proposals in response to this BAA are encouraged to submit SAFETY Act applications on their existing technologies and are invited to contact the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation (OSAI) for more information at 1-866-788-9318 or [email protected] or visit OSAI’s website at www.safetyact.gov.


http://www.safetyact.gov/


Appendix A

List of Acronyms and AbbreviationsAGL Above Ground LevelANSI American National Standards InstituteBAA Broad Agency AnnouncementCA Cooperative AgreementCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCPFF Cost Plus Fixed FeeDCA Reagan Airport, Washington DCDHS Department of Homeland SecurityDIRCM Directed Infrared Counter-MeasureDoD Department of DefenseECMT Emerging Counter-MANPADS Technology (or Technologies)EGN Emergency Ground NotificationEWR Newark International Airport, Newark, NJFED-STD Federal StandardFFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development CenterGFE Government Furnished EquipmentGFI Government Furnished InformationGFS Government Furnished ServicesHAE High Altitude EnduranceHBCU Historically Black Colleges and UniversitiesHIRF High-Intensity Radiated FieldsHUBZone Historically Underutilized Business ZoneLAS Las Vegas International Airport, Las Vegas, NVLAX Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, CAMANPADS Man-Portable Air Defense SystemMI Minority InstitutionsMOA Memorandum of AgreementMWS Missile Warning SystemNPRM Notice of Proposed RulemakingOEP Operational Evaluation PlanOTA Other Transaction AuthorityPC Personal ComputerPDF Portable Document FormatPOA&M Plan of Action and MilestonesRFP Request for ProposalHSARPA BAA07-04Published: 03/27/2007 of 33

ROM Rough Order of MagnitudeS&T Science and Technology DirectorateSAN San Diego International Airport, San Diego, CASBC Small Business ConcernSDB Small and Disadvantaged BusinessesSDVO Service-Disabled Veteran-OwnedSPO System Program OfficeTRL Technology Readiness LevelUAS Unmanned Aerial System WB Women-owned Businesses


chloe baa · web viewcommercial aircraft are susceptible and subject to the threat of attack by...

Documents