MODIFICATION
10 -- Campus Challenge Problem Solving Competition Miniature Self- Deploying Systems in Cluttered/ Confined Environments
- Notice Date
- 5/26/2009
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFRL - Eglin Research Site, 101 West Eglin Blvd, Suite 337, Eglin AFB, Florida, 32542-6810
- ZIP Code
- 32542-6810
- Solicitation Number
- RWK-BAA-09-0008
- Archive Date
- 4/30/2009
- Point of Contact
- Leah D Ransom, Phone: (850)883-2679, Donna A Moran, Phone: (850)883-2676
- E-Mail Address
-
leah.ransom@eglin.af.mil, donna.moran@eglin.af.mil
(leah.ransom@eglin.af.mil, donna.moran@eglin.af.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- U.S. AIR FORCE AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY MUNITIONS DIRECTORATE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT # RWK-BAA-09-0008 CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROBLEM SOLVING COMPETITION MINIATURE SELF-DEPLOYING SYSTEMS IN CLUTTERED/CONFINED ENVIRONMENTS Published in the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPS) 5 Mar 2009 Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate Contracting Division, AFRL/RWK, 101 West Eglin Boulevard, Suite 337, Eglin AFB FL 32542-6810 Direct inquiries to Ms. Donna Moran, Contracting Officer, (850) 883-2676, e-mail donna.moran@eglin.af.mil or Ms Leah Ransom, 883-2679, e-mail leah.ransom@eglin.af.mil and technical inquiries to Mr. Charles Cottrell (850) 883-2723, e-mail charles.cottrell@eglin.af.mil TABLE OF CONTENTS: PART I INTRODUCTION PART II RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT PART III CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROCEDURES Phase I - Letter of Intent Phase II -- White Papers Phase III - Proposal Submission, Contract Award Phase IV -Campus Challenge Winner Selection PART IV CAMPUS CHALLENGE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS PART V PROPOSAL PREPARATION PART VI PROPOSAL EVALUATION PART I INTRODUCTION The Campus Challenge problem solving competition is an effort sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate. The purpose of the competition is to solicit innovative, potentially paradigm-shifting ideas that have the potential, upon maturity, to successfully address specific real-world problems of interest to the Air Force research community. This is accomplished through direct competition, ultimately among a small number of participants. Campus Challenge is a recurring event that could feature a different selection of participants each time. But the charter will always be the same-a challenge to match wits in devising solutions to real problems through the advent of new technology. This is the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) of the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate (AFRL/RW) under the provisions of paragraph 6.102(d)(2) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation that provides for the competitive selection of research proposals. Proposals submitted in response to this BAA that are selected for award are considered to be the results of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of PL 98-369, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. For purposes of this announcement, research is defined to be scientific study and experimentation directed at increasing knowledge and understanding in relation to long term national security needs. PART II RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES FOR MINIATURE SELF-DEPLOYING SYSTEMS (MSDS) IN CLUTTERED/CONFINED ENVIRONMENTS The Urban/Cluttered environment represents an area that has captured military interest in recent years. Traditional aerospace research has focused on speed, precision, endurance, and stealth. However, the possibility of operating miniature systems in this environment brings about new challenges. Ultimately, the Munitions Directorate would be able to bring to maturation all the technologies necessary to allow the US Air Force to confidently pursue the development of a constellation of multi-agent platforms (operating in the air and/or the ground) that can maneuver autonomously. These constellations should be able to maneuver in the open or inside of structures. These maneuvering systems need to be able to provide diverse capabilities to the war-fighter. They may be called upon for search and rescue tasks. The systems may be used to find and identify hazardous materials. They may be employed to detect and identify electronic devices such as computers, radars, or communication systems. These miniature systems would presumably have the following characteristics: a. Can be air-delivered to the vicinity of a target. b. Can enter the target area autonomously - either airborne or on the ground c. Can operate without recourse to Global Positioning System (GPS) assistance d. Can accommodate a variety of payloads - sensors and/or target neutralization devices e. Possess or have access to enough power to successfully execute the mission f. Can communicate with each other or to a remote monitoring station g. Can be self-disabling and tamper-proof at the mission's conclusion Size is a consideration. It is desired that these systems be as small as possible while still being able to have the attributes stated above. It is not a necessity that these systems be re-useable after their given mission is complete. But that re-use capability would be advantageous. Therefore, system cost must also be a consideration. The thrust of this problem statement is to provide the following: 1. Identify the key technologies that need to be developed to satisfy each of those seven characteristics. Some of the technologies may already be available. 2. Identify the current maturity level of each of those technologies. 3. Ultimately, provide a comprehensive technology investment roadmap in which the Munitions Directorate may choose to invest. This investment roadmap would be the most efficient path to follow to bring the required technologies to the requisite maturity level for sub-system integration and demonstration. Time to develop and cost to develop are both factors. This statement of the problem is intentionally vague so the Munitions Directorate can solicit "out-of-the-box" thinking rather than rehashing already-established concepts. With that understanding, please think in terms of satisfying the envisioned missions of these systems as opposed to any specific characteristic that might not be germane to a truly novel approach. PART III CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROCEDURES This competition is divided into four phases: Letters of Intent, White Papers, Proposal Submissions and Campus Challenge Winner Selection. Phase I -- Letters of Intent: All students (undergraduate or graduate) and faculty of universities are eligible and encouraged to participate. The goal is to produce the best possible solution to the stated problem regardless of who participates. Participation from various universities and departments within the university is encouraged. The universities may team with industry partners, however, the university must take the lead. Only one letter of intent per university team should be submitted. The letter must be received by 4:00pm CST 30 June 2009. The letter shall include a synopsis of the proposed idea. All teams intending to participate must submit a one-page, single spaced letter of intent to AFRL/RWK (see the address in Part V below). The letters will be reviewed by the RW Campus Challenge Review Panel, and approximately ten teams will be selected to submit a follow-up white paper. The criteria for this initial down select will be technological innovation and likelihood of successful system-level development within a nominal 8- to 12-year timeframe, as evaluated by Campus Challenge Review Panel. The selected participants will be informed and invited to attend a meeting to be held at or near Eglin AFB, FL to discuss the problem and the competition requirements in greater detail prior to their submission of white papers. Those not selected will be notified. Phase II -- White Paper: In Phase II the participants will be selected to submit a white paper. The anticipated date selecting the white paper participants is 31 May 09. The white paper is the most important factor in the Phase II competition. It should be specific and complete. All of the technical factors do not need to be addressed in the white paper, but the following should be included and emphasized accordingly in the white paper: (1) Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Problem requirements. (2) Describe the proposed technical approaches to comply with the requirements specified in the Problem. (3) Particular emphasis should be directed toward identifying existing or emerging technologies that may be used singularly or in combination to provide an innovative means to solve the Problem. All technologies or suggested approaches should be available for advanced or system-level development by the Air Force within the next 8- to 12-years after completion of this effort. Preparation of White Paper: The anticipated date for submission of white papers to AFRL/RWK is 15 Jan 2010. The white paper shall be limited to 10 pages or less, including title page, narrative, tables, figures, and references. A page is defined to be one side of an 8.5 x 11-inch piece of paper with information on it. Print size is no smaller than 10-point type in Arial or Times New Roman. All white papers must be submitted in hard copy and electronic media (CD-ROM or e-mail) in MS Word or Portable Document File (PDF) format directly to addresses listed in Part V. On the cover page, reference the BAA number and you CAGE and DUNS codes. To do business with the Air Force Research Laboratory/Munitions Directorate (AFRL/RW), you must have software packages that are compatible with Microsoft Office 2007. Ten paper copies of the white paper shall be submitted; each must bear the signatures, names and departments of those persons who actively participated. No Air Force funding is available for preparation of the white papers or follow-on proposals. Basis for Evaluation of White Papers: The Campus Challenge Review Panel will be composed of Air Force scientists and technical experts. This team may call upon other government resources for analysis, evaluation, modeling, or costing expertise. Two white papers will be selected as Phase II winners and requests for proposals will be sent to these winners. Evaluation criteria are in Part VI of this BAA. Phase III -- Proposal Submission: In Phase III, two participants will be selected to submit a proposal. The anticipated date for the Government's Request For Proposals (RFP) is 15 Mar 2010; proposals will be due 15 May 2010. The winners will be asked to submit proposals for a Development Plan describing how the Air Force could most efficiently develop the ideas presented in their respective white papers. Two awards are anticipated to be issued with the estimated amount for each award to be not less than $150,000. However, the government reserves the right to decline award and either proceed with fewer projects or request a proposal from among the original white paper submittals. Preparation of Proposal: Proposal Preparation instructions are defined in PART V of this BAA. Basis for Evaluation of Proposal: Evaluation criteria are in Part VI of this BAA. Phase IV - Campus Challenge Winner Selection Approximately eight months after the contract is awarded, each participant shall deliver a well-structured development plan. These development plans shall, as a minimum, consist of a technology investment roadmap, a development and transition schedule, and a detailed cost estimate. Their purpose shall be to provide the Air Force with a comprehensive strategy whereby the least amount of Government dollars can be best invested to provide all of the technologies necessary to realize the Problem solution within a nominal 8- to 12-year development period. Emphasis shall be placed on developing technologies with a high likelihood of successful transition to Air Force systems at the end of this period. Hence, an investment roadmap that merely recommends extended research grants would be unacceptable. The development plans shall include specific suggestions as to domestic technology vendors. Emphasis should be placed in two areas. The first is the innovative application of emerging technologies to solve the Problem. The second area of emphasis should be placed on describing a transition strategy that moves a technology from laboratory experiment to a viable system. The system should be at a level of maturity so that the Air Force can begin to integrate them into actual sub-system or prototype demonstrations at the end of the 8- to 12- year period, if not sooner. The Air Force reserves the right to accept, reject, or modify some or all of the recommendations presented in either or both development plans and is under no obligation to fund the implementation of the development plan. The Air Force will ultimately evaluate each of these two development plans and determine an overall Phase IV Campus Challenge winner. The overall winner will be notified, and will be presented the "Okaloosa Sword." Basis for Determining the Campus Challenge Winner: The Campus Challenge Review Panel will determine the Challenge winner by evaluating the Phase IV development plans using the following factors in descending order of importance: feasibility, technology maturity, transition strategy, and Air Force investment cost (these evaluation criteria are similar to the criteria used for proposal evaluation). Feasibility is the Air Force assessment of the probability that the proposed solution will be successful. Technology maturity is the Air Force assessment of the degree of investment risk associated with a particular technology. Transition strategy is the step-by-step process that will logically mature a technology to the point that it becomes a viable component within a larger system. Investment cost is the total Air Force funding on a year-to-year basis that would be required to provide the requisite mature technology and to transition it to the point that it could be successfully demonstrated at the integrated system level. All proprietary technology or data, whether in a white paper, proposal, or development plan, should be clearly labeled. The winning development plan will be the one that clearly and simply provides the more credible, preferably less expensive, means to arrive at an effective solution to the problem for one or more munitions applications. It should be noted that tangible, proof-of-concept demonstrations that serve to verify a competitor's overall concept are encouraged. These successful technology demonstrations would enhance the Air Force's confidence in the feasibility of a given approach. PART IV TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 30 APR 09 - Re-Publish BAA 30 JUN 09 -- Letters of Intent must be submitted to AFRL/RWK 15 JUL 09 -- Ten Participants selected to Submit White Papers 30 JUL 09 -- Industry Day with the White Paper Participants (Anticipated) 15 JAN 10 -- AFRL/RWK Receives White Papers 15 MAR 10-- Request for Proposal (RFP) Sent to two White Paper Awardees 15 MAY 10 -- Proposals must be submitted to AFRL/RWK 15 JUN 10 - Proposal Evaluations are complete 30 JUL 10 - The Two Grants are Awarded 1 APR 11 -- Development Plans submitted to AFRL/RWK 1 MAY 11 - Campus Challenge Winner is selected Summer 2011 -- USAF Dignitaries present "Okaloosa Sword" to Winner PART V PROPOSAL PREPARATION A. Proposal shall consist of two volumes. Volume 1 shall provide the technical proposal and Volume 2 shall address the price/cost portions of the proposal. Volume 1 shall be limited to a total of 25 pages, including resumes, chart, figures, tables, etc. Pages in excess of the specified 25 pages will be removed and returned to the offeror before evaluation start. A page is defined to be one side of an 8.5 x 11-inch piece of paper with information on it. Print size is no smaller than 10-point type in Arial or Times New Roman. All proposals must be submitted in hard copy and electronic media (CD-ROM or e-mail) in MS Word or Portable Document File (PDF) format directly to addresses listed in Part V. On the cover page, reference the BAA number and your CAGE and DUNS codes. To do business with the Air Force Research Laboratory/Munitions Directorate (AFRL/RW), you must have software packages that are compatible with Microsoft Office 2007. Ten paper copies of the proposal shall be submitted; each must bear the signatures, names and departments of those persons who actively participated. No Air Force funding is available for preparation of the proposals. Every proposal shall have at least one copy submitted on disk or via e-mail with a hard copy of the signature page sent via regular mail. Note: The preferred format for all proposals is via electronic means, whether on disc or via e-mail. The Government intends to work proposals and awards through electronic means. B. The technical portion of the proposal, Volume 1, should contain the following: 1. A title and abstract that includes a concise Statement of Work and basic approaches to be utilized. The Statement of Work should indicate the effort intended for each period of research. 2. A reasonably complete discussion stating the background and objectives of the proposed work, the approaches to be considered, and the resources to be employed. Include also the nature and extent of the anticipated results, and if known, the manner in which the work will contribute to the accomplishment of the agency's mission. 3. The names, brief biographical information, and a list of recent publications of the offeror's key personnel who will be involved in the research. Documentation of previous work or experience of the offeror in the field is especially important. 4. The type of support, if any, the offeror requests of the Munitions Directorate, e.g. facilities, equipment, and materials. 5. The names of federal, state, local agencies or other parties receiving the proposals and/or funding the proposed effort of a similar nature. If none, so state. 6. The identity of facilities, specialized equipment, or other real property to be used for the work, if appropriate for an understanding of the technical work to be conducted. 7. Identify all on-going Government contracts and related past contracts or assistance instruments. Provide a technical point of contact and telephone number for each contract cited. C. The cost portion of the proposal, Volume 2, should contain the following: 1. Proposal Pricing Cover Sheet for total proposal. 2. Summary by cost element and profit for each contract line and sub-line item and for the total proposal. 3. Labor summary for total proposal by categories, rates, and hours. Include an explanation of how labor rates are computed, including base rates and escalation. Show which are level of effort, if applicable. For proposals from universities, the times and amounts to be charged should be identified by academic year and summer effort. 4. Identification of indirect rates by fiscal year and explanation of how established and base to which they apply. 5. Bill of materials detailing items by type, quantity, and unit price, total amount, and source of estimate. Provide vendor quotes. 6. Summary of all travel by destination, purpose, number of people and days, airfare, per diem, car rental, etc. 7. Consultants by name, rate, and number of days or hours. Furnish copy of consulting agreement, and identify prior agreements under which the consultant received the proposed rate. 8. Other direct costs by type, amount, cost per unit and purpose. Specifically identify any costs for printing and publication and computers. 9. Subcontractor's proposal with prime offeror's price/cost analysis of subcontractor's proposal. If subcontractor was not competed, include justification. 10. Forecast of monthly dollar commitments for the proposed contract period. 11. State type of contract proposed. 12. State whether you, and your subcontractors, are a large business, small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), woman-owned small business, HUBZone small business, Veteran-owned business, Service Disabled Veteran-owned business, nonprofit, educational, or historically black college or university. 13. Identify and provide any evidence of approved accounting system. Identify other terms and conditions, if any. D. The Government anticipates award of a grant. E. Teaming arrangements with industry are encouraged. F. Options are discouraged and unpriced options will not be considered for award. G. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this announcement is not an allowable direct charge to any resulting grant or contract, or any other contract. It is an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost specified in FAR 31.205-18. Historically Black colleges and Universities or Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI), small businesses and small disadvantaged businesses are encouraged to participate as subcontractors to the universities. For the purpose of this BAA, the size standard is 1000 employees (NAICS 541712). H. This acquisition is considered full and open competition except that only U.S. participants may submit offers as prime contractors. I. Responders should reference the above number (RWK-BAA-09-0009) and BAA topic, "Campus Challenge Problem Solving Competition." Letters of Intent, White Papers and Proposals should be sent to Ms. Leah Ransom, Contract Specialist (850) 883-2679, e-mail leah.ransom@eglin.af.mil or Ms Donna Moran, Contracting Officer, 883-2676, e-mail donna.moran@eglin.af.mil at 101 West Eglin Boulevard, Suite 337, Eglin AFB, FL. 32542-6810. PART VI WHITE PAPER AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Letters of intent, white papers and proposals will be evaluated as stated in this Part. Submittals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors stated below in descending order of importance. No further evaluation criteria will be used. 1. Feasibility - (30%) The probability that the proposed solution will function as intended. 2. Innovation-- (20%) The degree of fresh thinking inherent in the technology or the approach. 3. Technology Maturity -- (20%) The degree of investment risk associated with a particular technology. 4. Transition Strategy -- (15%) The step-by-step process that will logically mature a technology to the point that it becomes a viable system. 5. Investment Cost - (10%) The total funding on a year-to-year basis required to mature the technology so it can be successfully demonstrated as a viable system. 6. Likelihood of Adoption -- (5%) The assessment that the idea would eventually be transitioned into an operational system of value to the Air Force. B. It is the policy of AFRL/RW to treat all white papers and proposals as privileged information, and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. White papers and proposals will be subject to an extensive evaluation by highly qualified Government personnel. The offeror must indicate on the appropriate form/page any limitation to be placed on disclosure of information contained in the proposal. Should portions of the proposal be incorporated into a resulting contract, that portion may be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act unless exempt from release. C. Each white paper and proposal will be evaluated based on the merit and relevance of the specific research proposed as it relates to the Campus Challenge Program, rather than against other white papers and proposals submitted in response to this research requirement.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/AFRLERS/RWK-BAA-09-0008/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: 101 W. Eglin Blvd. Suite 337, Eglin AFB, Florida, 32536, United States
- Zip Code: 32536
- Zip Code: 32536
- Record
- SN01826997-W 20090528/090526234937-42e26c670e4b7a32314be9878eae046c (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |