MODIFICATION
A -- MULTICELL AND DISMOUNTED COMMAND AND CONTROL
- Notice Date
- 7/31/2003
- 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
- BAA03-33
- Response Due
- 8/14/2003
- Archive Date
- 8/29/2003
- Point of Contact
- Gary Sauer, DARPA Program Manager, Phone 000-000-0000, Fax 703-696-9781, - Michael Blackstone, Contracting Officer, Phone (571) 218-4804, Fax (703) 696-2208,
- E-Mail Address
-
none, mblackstone@darpa.mil
- Description
- AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO MULTICELL AND DISMOUNT COMMAND AND CONTROL, BAA 03-33, DUE: 08/14/03; POC: MR. GARY SAUER, DARPA/IXO; FAX: (571) 218-4550. The purpose of this amendment is to 1) revise the instructions regarding proposal configuration/award restrictions and 2) revise the evaluation criteria identified in the Proposer Information Pamphlet (PIP). Therefore, the following changes apply: 1) The instructions found in the initial BAA announcement and PIP regarding proposal configuration/award restrictions are hereby changed FROM "Offerors may submit one or more proposals against any of the five (5) topic areas identified above. It is the Government?s intent that no more than one proposal be selected for any given topic area, and that Topic Area 1 and Topic Areas 2 through 5 be awarded to separate offerors. Offerors are permitted to propose on any number/combination of Topic Areas 2 through 5 (i.e., one topic or multiple topics through a teaming approach)." TO "Offerors may submit one or more proposals against any of the five (5) topic areas identified above. The Government will not award Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 2 work to the same Offeror in any configuration. The Government will consider award of any other single or multiple award configurations deemed acceptable to meeting the technical requirements of a Topic Area. Multiple awards to a single Topic Area will be considered where functionally manageable by government integrators." 2) The PIP, Paragraph entitled "Evaluation and Funding Processes", is hereby changed to reflect corrections to the stated evaluation criteria FROM " (1) Quality and Technical Merit: Understanding of scope of the problem(s) and identification of technical issues; Soundness and completeness of the system design; Potential for highly reliable video understanding solutions; Justification of design choices as compared to alternative techniques; Degree of innovation - potential for revolutionary advance. (2) Relevance of Proposed Approach to the Program Goals: Level of realism and the clear definition of the problem domain; Suitability and clarity of the proposed capabilities for operational purposes; Quality and clarity of the Statement of Work (SOW) and Program Plan; Quality of the Evaluation Plan . (3) Capabilities and Experience: Qualifications of proposed technical personnel and their availability for the duration of the contract; Offeror?s experience related to the proposed technology area; The ability to manage the proposed effort; Adequacy of proposed hardware and software infrastructure; Adequacy of security plan. (4) Approach to Technology Transfer: Understanding of video system architectures in laboratory and operational environments; Potential for low-cost integration into operational environments; Commitment to delivering results to others. (5) Cost Realism and Value of Proposed Work to Government: The total cost relative to benefit; The realism of cost levels for facilities and staff (including students); The cost-effective use of existing equipment and software; competitive costs on procurements; The cost-effectiveness of technology transfer. TO " (1) Quality and Technical Merit: Understanding of scope of the problem(s) and identification of technical issues; Justification of design choices as compared to alternative techniques; Degree of innovation - potential for revolutionary advance. (2) Relevance of Proposed Approach to the Program Goals: Level of realism and the clear definition of the problem domain; Suitability and clarity of the proposed capabilities; Quality and clarity of the Statement of Work (SOW) and Program Plan. (3) Capabilities and Experience: Qualifications of proposed technical personnel and their availability for the duration of the contract; Proposer?s experience related to the proposed technology area; The ability to manage the proposed effort. (4) Offerors Approach to Technology Transfer: Potential for low-cost integration into operational environments; Commitment to delivering results to others. (5) Cost Realism and Value of Proposed Work to Government: The total cost relative to benefit; The realism of cost levels for facilities and staff (including students); The cost-effective use of existing equipment and software; The cost-effectiveness of technology transition." The above changes (text) are highlighted in red in the updated PIP available on http://www.darpa.mil/ixo/solicitations/multicell/index.htm ALL OTHER TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR BAA03-33 REMAIN UNCHANGED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED HEREIN.
- Record
- SN00389018-W 20030802/030731214303 (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 |