SPECIAL NOTICE
99 -- SSP HBCU/MI Technology Research Opportunties
- Notice Date
- 6/17/2005
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- Contracting Office
- N00030 Nebraska Avenue Complex 287 Somers Avenue NW WASHINGTON, DC
- ZIP Code
- 20393-5446
- Archive Date
- 7/25/2005
- Description
- BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) I. INTRODUCTION 1. General. This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) of the Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.016. A formal request for proposals (RFP) or solicitation regarding this BAA will not be issued. Paper copies of this BAA will not be issued. 2. Set-Aside. This procurement is a total set-aside for historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions (HBCU/MIs). 3. Background. SSP is interested in obtaining white papers and full proposals through this BAA for the research opportunities described below under its HBCU/MI Technology Research Opportunities Program (the HBCU/MI Program). The HBCU/MI Program will consist of two phases. Phase I is expected to last for four to six months and result in the provision of feasibility studies for the research opportunities. Phase II is expected to last for up to two years and result in the provision of laboratory demonstrations and reports for the research opportunities. This BAA relates only to the first phase of the HBCU/MI program, except as otherwise indicated below. The government expects to award one or more Phase I contracts as a result of this BAA. It is estimated that each proposed feasibility study selected for award of a contract under Phase I will be funded in an amount of up to $20,000. A Phase I feasibility study may lead to award of a contract for work for up to two years in Phase II of the HBCU/MI program. It is estimated that each proposed project selected for award of a contract under Phase II will be funded in an amount of up to $80,000 for the first year and up to $80,000 for the second year. 4. Program Name SSP HBCU/MI Technology Research Opportunities 5. Research Opportunity Titles A. Peel and Stick Adhesive (HB04-1) B. Non-Volatile, Non-Destructive Read-Out Memories (HB04-2) C. Inertial Navigators’ Algorithm (HB04-3) D. High Temperature Protective Insulation (HB04-4) E. Alternate/Low Cost Replacement Heatshield and Nosetip Materials (HB04-5) F. Shock and Vibration Mitigation for a Navigation System (HB04-6) 6. Research Opportunity Numbers Numbers HB04-01 through HB04-06 as noted in “Description of Research Opportunities” below. II. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES HB04-1: Peel and Stick Adhesive. Develop a peel and stick adhesive backing for the Trident missile launcher lateral support urethane pads. Installation of the current urethane pads is time-consuming, costly and requires special handling measures. A two-part epoxy containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is used to adhere the pads to the launch tube. Personnel working with the current epoxy must wear respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE). For safety and health reasons, in areas where the epoxy is being used, a “stay-out zone” is established where no other operations may be performed. After pad application, the excess epoxy adhesive remaining around the lateral support pad is removed, which requires the use of VOCs. An adhesive-backed polyurethane pad would overcome these limitations. In addition, it would decrease the pad application time, since there will be no need to mix the two-part adhesive and no excess adhesive to remove after applicatio! n. The design must maximize the use of COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) items using the current urethane Trident II pads. The lateral support peel and stick system will be capable of adhering the lateral support urethane pads to the steel launch tube with a maximum friction peel pressure (pressure averaged over the pad bond area (psi) times a 3.0 factor of safety) of 10.29 psi. Additionally, the lateral shock pads shall be capable of being set up in the tube in less than 1/5 the time it takes to set the lateral support pads with the current two-component adhesive. HB04-2: Non-Volatile, Non-Destructive Read-Out Memories. Develop non-volatile, non-destructive read-out memories (NV-NDRO) that are radiation-hardened to replace existing unsupported plated wire memory. Plated wire has been used in the past for non-volatile memory, but it is no longer manufactured. Other technologies, such as ferroelectric memory, giant magnetoresistive and calcogenide, which are being developed for commercial use, need further development to operate in a strategic environment. HB04-3: Inertial Navigators’ Algorithm. Develop an algorithm that uses data from three inertial navigators to optimize navigation reliability, performance and redundancy. The algorithm must account for the permutations of combining or not combining data such that accuracy is enhanced while avoiding the possibility of data from one navigator corrupting the other. Presently the Strategic Systems navigation subsystem has two Electrostatically Supported Gyro Navigators (ESGNs). Based on his own judgment and guidelines, the navigator chooses one of these as a System Master inertial navigator. The System Master provides the data to applications and to the Fire Control System. Except for Difference Monitoring, which subtracts and compares the two inertial navigator outputs for diagnostic purposes, data from the two systems are not mixed. From a statistical information content viewpoint, mixing data from the two systems should enable more accurate navigation information. On the o! ther hand, it may open the possibility of one system corrupting the other. With the possibility of three inertial navigators for the Fiber Optic Gyro Navigator (FOGN) based navigation subsystem, the permutations of combining (or not combining) data from the navigators can be more complex. So the objective is to develop an algorithm that uses data from three inertial navigators to optimize navigation reliability, performance and redundancy. HB04-4: High Temperature Protective Insulation. As the propellant in the Post Boost Control System burns, the protective insulation between the propellant and its container experiences high temperatures, gas pressures and flow rates. The resulting ablation carries charred silica particles of the insulation and adhesives through the valves of the control system tending to foul the valves’ orifices thereby degrading control of the gas pressure. An insulation material is needed that has effective thermal properties but does not produce valve clogging. HB04-5: Alternate/Low Cost Replacement Heatshield and Nosetip Materials. Development of alternate/low-cost replacement heatshield and nosetip materials is needed for extending the life of reentry bodies. A goal of the replacement materials is to produce drop-in replacements that, relative to the current Navy SLBM reentry body materials, induce the same or better reentry body performance. In some performance areas, below-nominal response may be acceptable if innovative design techniques exist that can mitigate their influence on reentry body performance. One such area may be reentry body roll control. Recent ground testing indicates that some of the new fibers and/or manufacturing methods that appear attractive for reducing cost may induce roll torque coefficients that may degrade reentry body performance. To maintain these fibers and low cost concepts as viable candidates, an innovative design technique is needed that can control the roll rate of a reentry body during SLBM ! reentry. The concept must not allow the body to spin through zero, nor spin up to a critical roll resonance. The concept must have minimal impact on the current systems. HB04-6: Shock and Vibration Mitigation for a Navigation System. A new inertial navigation system for use on submarines is in development. Each submarine may have as many as three of these systems, and space on the existing bedplates is a major concern. An innovative, cost effective solution to the following trade space is needed: mitigate shock and vibration while minimizing the space (including sway space reserve) and maintaining attitude (angular position) relative to the original position of the unit prior to the shock or vibration event. So the objective is to develop a shock isolation system suitable for use on a submarine. The system must support a weight of 300-400 pounds and suppress shock and vibration while minimizing space. III. PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION 1. General. To be considered for an award of a contract as a result of this BAA, an entity must first submit a white paper as described below in accordance with this BAA. A white paper shall concern only one of the research opportunities described above. An entity may submit one or more white papers. The government shall review the submitted white papers. After its review, the government shall notify each submitter within three weeks as to whether or not the submitter is encouraged to submit a full proposal as described below. (Encouragement does not guarantee a subsequent contract award to a submitter, and lack of encouragement does not preclude such a contract award. A submitter who is not given such encouragement may nevertheless submit a full proposal.) After such notification, a submitter may submit a full proposal. To be considered for award of a contract, a submitter must submit a full proposal as described below in accordance with this BAA. A full proposal s! hall concern only one of the research opportunities described above. An entity may submit one or more full proposals. The government shall review the submitted full proposals. After its review, the government shall notify each submitter as to whether or not the submitter has been selected for award of a contract. White papers, full proposals, and any other information submitted to the government under this BAA will not be returned. 2. Submission of White Papers and Full Proposals. White papers and full proposals shall be submitted to the Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs, Attn: Laura Munro Vagts, SPN-23. The mailing address is below: Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs Attn: Laura Munro Vagts, SPN-23 Nebraska Avenue Complex 287 Somers Court NW Suite 10041 Washington, DC 20393-5446 Note that the street address of the Nebraska Avenue Complex is different from its mailing address. The street address is Nebraska Avenue Complex, 3801 Nebraska Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20393-5446. White papers and full proposals shall not be submitted by facsimile or email. A white paper or full proposal that is submitted by facsimile or email may not be considered. Submitters should bear in mind that U.S. Mail deliveries have been frequently delayed in the Washington area due to security measures. Hand-delivered submissions are encouraged and shall be personally delivered to Laura Munro Vagts, Room 13032B, or to Cris Beveridge in Room 13035, SSP Headquarters Building, Nebraska Avenue Complex, 3801 Nebraska Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The Nebraska Avenue Complex is a controlled facility. A photo identification card will be required in order to obtain a visitor’s badge. Contact Laura Munro Vagts at (202) 764-1703 or Cris Beveridge at (202) 764-1705 for assistance with r! espect to hand-delivered submissions. 3. Due Dates. The due date for submission of white papers is no later than 3 pm, local time, on 6 July 2005. The due date for submission of full proposals is no later than 3 pm, local time, on 15 August 2005. The government has the discretion to evaluate or decline to evaluate a white paper or full proposal that is received after the applicable due date. 4. Costs. The government shall not reimburse any cost of preparing or submitting a white paper or full proposal as a direct charge to a contract resulting from this BAA or to any other contract. 5. White Paper Format. The white paper format shall be as indicated below. The government has the discretion to reject a white paper that does not meet the following format requirements. Paper Size: 8.5 x 11 inch paper Margins: 1 inch Spacing: single or double-spaced Font: Arial, 12 point Page count: maximum ten single-sided pages (excluding cover page) Copies: one original and two copies. 6. White Paper Content. The government expects a white paper to be unclassified. The submitter shall identify with appropriate markings any proprietary information in the white paper. The content of the white paper shall be as indicated below. The government has the discretion to reject a white paper that does not meet the following requirements. a. Cover Page. The cover page shall be labeled “White Paper,” and shall include the BAA number, proposed title with research opportunity number (e.g., “HB04-1”), the submitter’s name, and the submitter’s administrative and technical points of contact with telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and email addresses. The cover page shall be signed and dated by an authorized officer. b. Statement of the Problem. This section shall explain the underlying technical challenges of the project. Its purpose is to demonstrate the submitter’s knowledge of the problem and establish a basis for the proposed technical approach. c. Technical Approach Description. This section shall describe the concept or idea, what it is (algorithm, sensor, software, computer, signal processor, etc.), the function it performs, a description of how it works, the technologies and techniques that will be used, and how they will be applied to solving the problem. It shall explain what the submitter will do and how the submitter is going to do it. Useful graphics, diagrams and other illustrations may be used to explain the approach. This section shall state the rationale for using the proposed technical approach instead of other approaches. d. Technical Approach Benchmarks. The overarching objective is to solve the problem. However, the approach that is taken determines what specific objectives have to be achieved. This section shall describe identifiable and preferably quantifiable, objective benchmarks that will clearly illustrate that the approach has been successful. e. Technical Approach Risk Assessment. This section shall describe the primary risks of the technical approach. This includes discussing what could go wrong, what mitigating measures or alternatives will be taken if it something does go wrong, and what the implications are if these measures have to be taken. f. Technical Approach - Deliverables. This section shall briefly describe the content of the feasibility study resulting from the Phase I effort. This might include a design, software, an algorithm, a disclosure package, a set of hardware, a chemical formula, a report on a demonstration, an analysis, etc. g. Technical Approach - Program Schedule / Test and Verification Plan. This section shall timeline the tasks that must be accomplished, when deliverables will be provided, when tests will be conducted, and when program objectives will be verified. h. Payoff. This section shall, if possible, quantify the improvement in capability that the proposed approach will provide. If it cannot be quantified, this section shall qualify it by showing how well it can solve the problem. The Payoff section must directly respond to the Statement of the Problem, showing that it satisfies that requirement. i. Personnel. This section shall list the participants in the project with a brief description of their background that is relevant to the proposed project, a brief statement of the responsibilities of each, and include any supporting contracts, consultants, or teaming relationships. j. Cost. This section shall provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost for Phase I and, if possible, a ROM for Phase II. 7. Full Proposal Format. The full proposal format shall be as indicated below. The government has the discretion to reject a full proposal that does not meet the following format requirements. Paper Size: 8.5 x 11 inch paper Margins: 1 inch Spacing: single or double-spaced Font: Arial, 12 point Page count: maximum thirty single-sided pages (excluding cover page) Copies: one original and two copies. 8. Full Proposal Content. The government expects a full proposal to be unclassified. The submitter shall identify with appropriate markings any proprietary information in the full proposal. The content of the proposal shall be as indicated below. The government has the discretion to reject a full proposal that does not meet the following requirements. a. Cover Page. The cover page shall be labeled “Full Proposal,” and shall include the BAA number, proposed title with research opportunity number (e.g., “HB04-1”), the submitter’s name, and the submitter’s administrative and technical points of contact with telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and email addresses. The cover page shall be signed and dated by an authorized officer. b. Statement of the Problem. This section shall explain the purpose of the proposed effort, and the underlying technical challenges of the project and their significance. Its purpose is to demonstrate the submitter’s knowledge of the problem and what must be done to solve it. c. Technical Approach Description. This section shall describe the concept or idea, what it is (algorithm, sensor, software, computer, signal processor, etc.), the function it performs, a description of how it works, the technologies and techniques that will be used, and how they will be applied to solving the problem. It shall explain what the submitter will do and how the submitter is going to do it. It shall explain the underlying technical foundation that provides support for this approach. Useful graphics, diagrams and other illustrations may be used to explain the approach. This section shall state the rationale for using the proposed technical approach instead of other approaches. This section shall provide a complete list of the tasks that must be performed to solve the problem along with a description and a brief explanation of the purpose of each task. d. Technical Approach Benchmarks. This section shall describe identifiable and preferably quantifiable, objective benchmarks that will clearly illustrate that the effort is progressing toward successfully solving the problem. Include these as milestones on the Schedule discussed below. e. Technical Approach Risk Assessment. This section shall describe the primary risks of the technical approach. This includes discussing what could go wrong, what mitigating measures or alternatives will be taken if it something does go wrong, and what the implications are if these measures have to be taken. Include these alternatives in the Program Schedule / Test and Verification Plan section and in the Cost section described below, identifying them as alternatives. f. Technical Approach References. This section shall list any documentation (including reports), which are relevant to the proposed technical approach. g. Technical Approach - Deliverables. This section shall briefly describe the content of the feasibility study resulting from the Phase I effort. This might include a design, software, an algorithm, a disclosure package, a set of hardware, a chemical formula, a report on a demonstration, an analysis, etc. Any other deliverables should also be identified and indicated in the Program Schedule / Test and Verification Plan section described below. h. Technical Approach - Program Schedule / Test and Verification Plan. This section shall timeline the tasks that must be accomplished, when milestones will be achieved, when deliverables will be provided, when tests will be conducted, and when program objectives will be verified. i. Payoff. This section shall, if possible, quantify the improvement in capability that the proposed approach will provide. If it cannot be quantified, this section shall qualify it by showing how well it can solve the problem. The Payoff section must directly respond to the Statement of the Problem, showing that it satisfies that requirement. This section shall provide an explanation of why the technical approach should result in and achieve this payoff. j. Personnel. This section shall list the key personnel and their qualifications, including their names and titles; relevant education, research, and experience; current position; and any related work (prior, current, or pending) or other background information that is relevant to the proposed project, including publications. This section shall also include a brief statement of the responsibilities of each person, and identify and explain any supporting contracts, consultants, or teaming relationships. k. Cost. This section shall provide a detailed breakout of cost for Phase I and a rough order of magnitude (ROM) for Phase II. The Phase I cost should associate the cost to each task and identify labor, materials, consultants and any other significant and relevant costs. l. Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements. This section shall contain the completed representations, certifications, and other statements required for this procurement. The representations, certifications, and other statements shall be signed and dated by an authorized officer. An uncompleted copy of the representations, certifications, and other statements shall be obtained from the point of contact (see section V.2 below) before submission of a full proposal. IV. EVALUATION INFORMATION 1. General. As a result of this BAA, the government expects to award one or more contracts after evaluation of white papers and full proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated below. A government determination on whether to award a contract to a submitter will take into account the applicable evaluation results and the funding limitations and any other requirements stated in this BAA. The government has the discretion to award no contracts, and to award one or more contracts based on all, some, or parts of the full proposals that are received under this BAA. 2. Evaluation Criteria. The following evaluation criteria apply to both white papers and full proposals: (a) importance to agency programs; (b) understanding of the problem; (c) technical approach; (d) payoff; (e) personnel; and (f) cost. 3. Relative Importance of Evaluation Criteria. The importance to agency programs criterion is more important than the understanding of the problem criterion. The understanding of the problem criterion is more important than the technical approach criterion. The technical approach criterion is more important than the payoff criterion. The payoff criterion is more important than the personnel criterion. All of the criteria, other than the cost criterion, when combined, are significantly more important than the cost criterion. 3. Method of Evaluation. White papers and full proposals will be evaluated by SSP personnel, personnel at government laboratories, and/or other personnel whose responsibilities, expertise, and/or knowledge relate to the subject matter under consideration. 4. Proposed Costs. The government may perform a cost analysis, cost realism analysis, and/or cost reasonableness analysis with respect to proposed costs. As a result of the analysis, the government may adjust proposed costs for evaluation purposes. 5. Funding Limitations. This procurement is subject to the availability of funds. Phase I feasibility studies and Phase II demonstrations and reports are also subject to the following funding limitations, which apply to each awarded contract. The current funding limitation for a Phase I contract is $20,000. The current funding limitation for the first year of a Phase II contract is $80,000. The current funding limitation for the second year of a Phase II contract NOTE: THIS NOTICE WAS NOT POSTED TO WWW.FEDBIZOPPS.GOV ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (17-JUN-2005); HOWEVER, IT DID APPEAR IN THE FEDBIZOPPS FTP FEED ON THIS DATE. PLEASE CONTACT fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
- Web Link
-
Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/DON/SSP/SSP/DON-SNOTE-050617-002/listing.html)
- Record
- SN00832205-F 20050619/050617212111 (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 |