Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JUNE 18, 2009 FBO #2761
SOLICITATION NOTICE

A -- Recovery of Heavy Oil on the Sea Floor - Attachment A and B

Notice Date

6/16/2009
 

Notice Type

Presolicitation
 

NAICS

541712 — Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
 

Contracting Office

Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), Contracting Office, USCG Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, Connecticut, 06320-5506, United States
 

ZIP Code

06320-5506
 

Solicitation Number

HSCG32-09-R-R00024
 

Archive Date

8/15/2009
 

Point of Contact

Joyce M Overton, Phone: 860-4271-2886
 

E-Mail Address

joyce.m.overton@uscg.mil
(joyce.m.overton@uscg.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

Attachment B - Sample SOW and Deliverable List GFI -Attachment A - Heavy Oil Detection (Prototypes) Draft Final Report BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) BAA NUMBER HSCG32-09-R-R00024 Recovery of Heavy Oil on the Sea Floor INTRODUCTION This announcement constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2). No request for proposal (RFP), solicitation, or other announcement will be made. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. The U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center (RDC) will not issue paper copies of this announcement. RDC reserves the right to select for award and fund all, some, or none of the proposals in response to this announcement. RDC provides no funding for direct reimbursement of proposal development costs. Technical and cost proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. RDC treats all proposals as sensitive competitive information and discloses their contents only for the purposes of evaluation. I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Agency Name U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center 1 Chelsea Street New London, CT 06320-5506 2. Research Opportunity Title Recovery of Heavy Oil on the Sea Floor 3. Program Name Recovery of Heavy Oil 4. Research Opportunity Number BAA Number HSCG32-09-R-R00024 5. Response Date Proposals due July 31, 2009 6. Research Opportunity Description 6.1 Background Coast Guard regulations found in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 154 and 155, require that certain vessels and facilities that transfer oil or hazardous materials have response plans that include methods for the detection and recovery of Group V heavy (submerged) oils. However, the Coast Guard and industry do not have a consistent and reliable method to detect and recover submerged oil. Once spilled, heavy oils can penetrate water intakes at power plants and other facilities, at times requiring these facilities to shut down. Heavy oils can also harm wetlands, beaches, shellfish and other marine life, as well as property such as boats and docks This is the second step in the process of developing an entire recovery system to find and recover oil on the sea floor in a variety of conditions. Previous work has been done in almost all of the components and many references are listed below. Included are some of the latest efforts during the most recent spills and research being performed including the final report for the first step of the evaluation of detection techniques by RDC. But because this type of spill occurs infrequently, limited documentation is available to determine how successful the recovery was, how well the configuration worked and recommendations to make the system better. This type of information is needed for planners and responders, especially those responsible for Group V oils. 6.2 Scope The scope of this BAA includes Phase I (Design Concepts) and Phase II (Prototype Development). Phase I will be fully funded and Phase II will be an option that may or may not be exercised by the Government. 6.3 Phase I (Design Concepts) The contractor shall develop a proof of concept solution and a final design for a complete system. This system will include everything needed from the recovery on the bottom to the separation of any water and/or silt or sand that may also be collected. The contractor shall identify whether the design is for a vessel or designed to be deployed stationary in a current flow (i.e. used to corral oil that is moving along the bottom towards a sensitive location). The design concept shall demonstrate as many of the following capabilities as possible: 1)Presence of heavy oil on the sea floor identified with 80% certainty 2)Oil location geo-referenced to within 5 meters in accuracy 3)Minimal dispersion of oil or bottom material into the water column 4)Provides real time data/feedback 5)Provides recovery for all sea floor conditions (silty, rocky, and gravel bottom types; vegetation and shellfish-covered bottoms; and over flat and sloped areas and areas with rapid substrate changes) 6)Operates in fresh and sea water conditions equally well 7)Operates in water depths of up to 200 feet 8)Minimal maintenance requirements (easy to maintain and calibrate) 9)Easy to operate and requires minimal training 10)Easily de-contaminated and durable 11)Equipment operation not adversely affected by exposure to oil 12)Operates in water currents at the surface of up to 1.5 knots 13)Deploys and operates in up to 5 foot seas 14)Operable during the day and night 15)Sets up within 12 hours of arriving on site -- Special requirements shall be identified 16)Viscosity – Operates in the range of 2000-100,000 cSt 17)Includes a decanting system that can handle the heavy oil and any oil that refloats in the recovery process 18)Process to complete “polishing” the resultant water for disposal 19)Minimal impacts to benthic resources that may be disturbed Design packages shall include: 1) A description of each of the components 2) The background and level of development of each (e.g., new, adapted from other application, used on spills before, used in test before, etc.) 3) The operation of the system (how the components work together) and any limitations (e.g. visibility, limits of viscosity, temperature). The design package shall identify the recovery capability amount of oil in barrels per day (24 hour) and the viscosity range used for this calculation 4) Specific developmental activities that are needed to complete final design 5) Specific tests or limitations on equipment (e.g. special power requirements, minimum depth of water, space needed, etc.) 6) Proposed schedule and costs for Prototype Development 6.4 Phase II (Prototype Development) Testing will be conducted by an independent test facility selected by RDC and will be supervised by Coast Guard personnel. The Oil and Hazardous Material Simulated Test Tank (OHMSETT) in Leonardo, NJ, is the anticipated initial test facility; see information at www.ohmsett.com). Testing will occur in the large tow tank or equivalent. Offerors have the opportunity to be creative in their selection of technical approach. A combination of technologies that meet the requirements may also be proposed. This system may be designed to perform in a stationary mode (i.e. currents move the oil to the collection site) or a mobile mode (system moves to recover). 6.5 Government Furnished Information (GFI) “Heavy Oil Detection (Prototypes) -Draft Final Report”, May 2009 - Hansen, Kurt A.,Michele Fitzpatrick; Penny R. Herring; Mark VanHaverbeke – Attachment A 6.6 General Background 1. “Spills of NonFloating Oils,” National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999. 2. Cabioc’h, Fanch and Gwenaelle Le Corgne, “Sunken Hydrocarbons and Chemical Products: Possible Responses and Available Methods,” Third R&D Forum on High-density Oil Spill Response, March 2002, Brest, France. 3. Parthiot, Francis, “Monitoring of Sunken Fuel Oil,” Third R&D Forum on High-density Oil Spill Response, March 2002, Brest, France. 4. Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC), “Submerged Oil – State of the Practice and Research Needs,” University of New Hampshire, July, 2007. (http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/submerged_oil/index.htm) 5. Usher, David, “Responding to Submerged Oils in Freshwater Environments,” Freshwater Spills Symposium, 2006. 6. S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., “Transfer of Decanting Technology Research to Oil Spill Response Organizations and Regulators,” June 17, 2005, for Minerals Management Service. 7. Schnitz, Paul R. and Martha A. Wolf, “Nonfloating Oil Spill Response Planning,” 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, pg 1307-1311. 8. Castle, Robert W., Fred Wehrenberg, Jeremy Bartlett and Jason Nuckols, “Heavy Oil Spills: Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” 1995 International Oil Spill Conference, PG 565-571. 9. Michel, Jacqueline, “Spills of Nonfloating Oil: Evaluation of Response Technologies”, 2007 International Oil Spill Conference. 10. Morris, P. R., A.A. North and D.H. Thomas, “Trials with Net Booms for Corralling and Recovering Viscous Oils at Sea,”, Warren Spring Lab, Stevenage, England, 1985. 11. Helland, CDR Randolph C., LTJG Benjamin L. Smith, William Edward Hazel III, Michael Popa and Dennis J. McCarthy, “Underwater Recovery of Submerged Oil During a Cold Weatger Response,”, 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, pp 765-772. 12. Amato, Dr. Ezio, “technical Guidelines on Sunken Oil Assessment and Removal Techniques, (Proposed Index and main related references,”, IMO OPRC-HNS Technical Group, Working paper, 2008. 13. Madsen, Mads N., “Analysis of Survey modeling and remote sensing techniques for Monitoring and Assessment of environmental impacts of submerged oil during oil spill accidents, Final Report”, May 5, 2007, European Union. 14. Michel, Jacquiline, Debra Scholz, Charles B. Henry and Bradford L. Benggio, “Group V Fuel Oils: Source, behavior and Response Issues, 1995 International Oil Spill Conference, pp 559-564. 15.Burns, LT George H., C.A. Benson, Steve Kelly, Jacqueline Muchel, LCDR Bradford Benggio and Mark Ploen, “Recovery of Submerged oil at San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1994,”, 1998 International Oil Spill Conference, 00551-558. 16. Barbini, R.F. Colao, R. Fantoni, C. Ferrante, A. Palucci and S. Ribezzo, “Development of LIDAR Fluorescence Payload for Submarine Operation,” Proceedings of EARSeL-SIG Workshop LIDAR, Dresden, FRG, June 2000, pages 39-45. 17. Cooper, D., D. Velicogna, C. E. Brown, “Optimizing Annular Water Flow with Viscous oils”, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June, 2007, pp331-342. 18. Cooper, D., D. Velicogna, C. E. Brown, “Heavy oil Booming,” Proceedings of the Thirtieth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June, 2007, pp343-354. 19. Potter, Steve, Mike Bronson, Ed Thompson and Lee Majors, “Testing of Various Options for Improving the Pumping of viscous Oils and Emulsions,” Proceedings of the Thirtieth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June, 2007, pp 387-401. 6.7 RDC Research 1. Fant, J.W. and K.A. Hansen, “U.S. Coast Guard Laser Fluorosensor Testing,” Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June, 2006, pages 951-964. 2. Hansen, Kurt A., Job Bello, Susan Clauson, R Camilli, Brian Bingham, MetteT. Eriksen, Eric Maillard, John Morris and Pamela Locy, “Preliminary Results for Oil on the Bottom Detection Technologies”, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, June, 2008, pp 713-740. 3. Fitzpatrick, M., K Hansen, M VanHaverbeke and P. Herring, “Final Report for the Evaluation of Sunken Oil Detection”, in preparation (available May 2009). 6.8 Recent Experiences 1. Louisiana State University, “Summary of Laboratory Results TB DBL-152,” November 16, 2005. 2. Michel, Jacqueline, “Assessment and Recovery of Submerged Oil,” prepared for Research and Development Center, U.S. Coast Guard, June 9, 2006. 3. Usher, David, “Post Katrina: Underwater Oil Recovery in the Gulf of Mexico on the Seabed,” Interspill 2006, London, March, 2006. 7. Point(s) of Contact All questions may be addressed to the Contracting Officer, Joyce.M.Overton@uscg.mil or (860) 271-2886. Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government. 8. Additional Information This announcement is restricted to designing a concept (Phase I), followed by development of a prototype system and that portion of advanced technology development related to a specific system or hardware procurement (Phase II). Awards made under this BAA are for scientific study and experimentation directed towards developing a system to detect/recovery heavy oils on the sea floor. The technological concepts proposed under Phase I shall not change under Phase II. Phase II is for development and deployment of Phase I technologies. Any hardware or software developed under a contract resulting from this BAA will be retained by the Offeror. The Coast Guard does not expect to own the detection/recovery capability (i.e., proofs of concept or prototypes). II. AWARD INFORMATION Award of efforts as a result of this announcement will be in the form of contracts. Award(s) will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposals are considered to be of the highest technical importance to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria, taking into consideration the available funding. It is anticipated that cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion form contracts will be awarded. The period of performance of the awards will typically be: Base award (10 months) – Phase I Option 1 (one year) – Phase II RDC anticipates a budget of $1,000,000 for the total program (Phases I and II). RDC plans to fully fund up to $500,000 for approximately three to five Phase I contracts that will most likely range from $50,000 to $150,000 per award. The anticipated date of award is approximately October 1, 2009, subject to the availability of funds. It is anticipated that 2-3 of the original vendors from Phase I will be awarded the option contract (Phase 2) to build a prototype system. The awards will most likely range from $150-200K. The anticipated date of award is approximately October 1, 2010. III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION All responsible sources may submit a proposal, which will be considered by the Government. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals. However, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of technology of this proposal for exclusive competition among those entities. IV. PROPOSALS The due date for receipt of proposals is 2:00 p.m. (local time) on July 31, 2009. It is anticipated that final selections will be made approximately 60 days after proposal submission. As soon as the final proposal evaluation process is completed, Offerors will be notified via e-mail of selection or non-selection for award. Contract awards will be based upon successful negotiations. Proposals shall be delivered with one original, one copy, and one electronic copy compatible with Microsoft Office 2003 on a CD-ROM. Proposals shall be sent to: U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center Attn: Ms. Joyce M. Overton 1 Chelsea Street New London, CT 06320-5506 Proposals submitted under this BAA are expected to be unclassified. However, confidential/classified proposals are permitted. Proposal submissions will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 15.207. Offerors shall appropriately mark each page of their submission that contains proprietary information. The proposal shall include a severable, self-standing Statement of Work (SOW) and Deliverables list that contains only unclassified information and does not include classified and proprietary restrictions. Titles given to the proposals shall be descriptive of the work they cover and not merely a copy of the title of this solicitation. Proposal Format – Volume 1 (Technical Proposal) and Volume 2 (Cost Proposal) •Paper Size – 8.5 x 11 inch paper •Margins – 1 inch •Spacing – single or double-spaced •Font – Times New Roman, 12 point •Other allowable: Charts/graphs may exceed the 8.5 x 11 inch paper size. •Number of Pages – Part 1 of Volume 1 is limited to no more than seven pages not including attachments (résumés). Part 2 of Volume 1, Statement of Work and Assertion of Data Rights, has no page limit. Volume 2 has no page limit. Proposals exceeding the page restriction may be excluded from review. Volume I: Technical Proposal The Technical Proposal shall consist of a cover page and two parts, Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 shall provide an executive summary of the technical proposal, a description of technical merit, brief summaries of staffing, and a description of past performance. Part 2 shall provide the proposed Statement of Work with its task/subtask breakdown and address data rights issues. Cover Page shall include the words “Volume I: Technical Proposal” and the following: a.BAA Number; b.Title of Proposal; c.Identity of prime Offeror and complete list of subcontractors, if applicable; d.Principal Investigator (PI) contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address); e.Contracting/Business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address); and f.Duration of effort. Part 1 shall include the following sections and be limited to seven pages: 1.Executive Summary Present briefly and concisely the important aspects of the proposal in an operational context. Clearly identify the oil detection/recovery system, technologies and deployment requirements. The summary should present an organized progression of the work to be accomplished in Phase I and Phase II with technical details that clearly demonstrate the core concepts of the proposal. 2.Technical Merit The proposal shall describe the following: a.Degree to which system meets the requirements; b.Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the problem including the tactical feasibility with current state of technology associated with heavy oil detection/recovery and the technical effort needed to improve current capabilities; c.Technology readiness; d.Degree of innovation; e.Completeness of design package f.Degree to which development is needed. 3.Staffing The proposal shall provide brief summaries clearly demonstrating the relevant skills, experience, and education of those proposed staff members the Offeror considers critical to the success of the proposed effort. Additionally, résumés shall be attached to Part 1 and will not count against the limit of seven pages. 4.Past Performance The proposal shall submit a brief description of the most relevant prior efforts (not more than three) completed within the past three years including funding amounts and clear descriptions of the work, roles and responsibilities demonstrating the relevance to the recovery of heavy oil on the sea floor. The proposal shall provide the name and telephone number of a point of contact for reference for each past experience submission. Note: If the Offeror has no relevant past performance it shall so state. Only relevant past performance submissions will be evaluated for past performance. Offerors lacking relevant past performance will be given a neutral rating. Part 2 shall include the following sections (no page limit): Statement of Work (SOW) and Corresponding Deliverables List: The SOW shall clearly detail the scope and objective of Phase I and Phase II efforts, including the technical approach and the schedule of technical tasks, subtasks, events, and milestones. Ensure that the SOW clearly separates Phase I and Phase II tasking, since Phase II must be priced separately and will be an option under the contract. The Offeror is expected to provide all equipment and/or real property necessary for the performance of the proposed effort. The following shall be accounted for in Phase I: 1.Kickoff Meeting: In a meeting with RDC personnel at the RDC site, the Offeror is to provide details on how all of the Phase I and Phase II capabilities will be handled by the technologies being proposed. 2.Progress Meeting: In a meeting at the offeror’s site, a progress meeting shall occur approximately half-way through the design process. 3.Final Report: The Offeror shall prepare a report documenting the proposed design. The following shall be accounted for in Phase II: 1.Kickoff Meeting: A meeting with RDC personnel at the RDC site. 2.Design Review Meeting: In a meeting with RDC personnel at the Offeror’s worksite, the Offeror shall provide details on how the design has progressed. The Offeror shall also again address how capabilities will be handled by the technologies being proposed. The design review meeting shall be scheduled to occur no later than halfway through the Phase II effort proposed period. 3.Prototype Demonstration: Recommend how best to test the technologies proposed to demonstrate that the prototype meets the operational conditions identified in 6.2. All requirements shall be addressed in the proposal by describing the design or previous testing performed. The Government will consider the Offeror’s recommendations when the Government develops a test plan. 4.Prototype Demonstration Date: Specify a test date for testing the prototype. 5.Prototype Demonstration Testing: Testing of the prototype shall be witnessed by the Offeror and accomplished during one week at OHMSETT, Leonardo, NJ or at a location approved by the Government. The Offeror may propose an alternate test facility for the Government’s approval. 6.Prototype Demonstration Report: The Offeror shall prepare a report of the prototype test, documenting the results and identifying tasks needed to be accomplished for successful full-scale deployment. The report shall be included within the SOW as a deliverable and shall be due 30 days after test completion. 7.Special Requirements: The SOW shall identify any specialized requirements needed to successfully accomplish prototype testing (e.g., the need for oil samples in advance for calibration). It is anticipated that the proposed SOW will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant contract award. To this end, the SOW shall be a severable self-standing document without any proprietary restrictions. The Offeror shall format the SOW and Deliverables list using the sample provided in Attachment B as a guide. Deliverables shall be cross-referenced in the SOW. Assertion of Data Rights: The Offeror shall include a summary of any proprietary rights to pre-existing data related to techniques, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. Any rights assertions made in other parts of the proposal that would impact the rights in this section shall be cross-referenced. If there are proprietary rights, the Offeror shall explain how these affect its ability to deliver subsystems and toolkits for integration. Additionally, Offerors shall explain how the program goals of the Coast Guard and industry response to heavy oils are achievable in light of these proprietary and/or restrictive limitations. Offerors asserting Data Rights shall do so in accordance with the clause in FAR 52.227.15, “Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.” The Government anticipates incorporating FAR Clauses 52.227-14 along with applicable alternates II, III, IV and V. If there are no claims of proprietary rights in pre-existing data, this section shall consist of a statement to that effect. Volume II: Cost Proposal The Cost Proposal shall consist of a cover page and two parts, Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 shall provide a detailed cost/fee breakdown of all costs by cost category by Offeror’s fiscal year and Part 2 shall provide a cost/fee breakdown by task/subtask using the same task numbers as in the Statement of Work. Clear and separate costs shall be provided for Phase I and Phase II. For proposal pricing purposes, Offerors should assume a contract start date of on or about October 1, 2009. The cost proposal should be limited to the minimum number of pages necessary to satisfy the specific requirements set forth below. Submission of computer-generated data is not desired but if it is essential to support the cost proposal, it may be submitted as an addendum and must be clearly cross-referenced to the material it supports in the cost proposal. Cost proposals should represent the Offeror’s best response to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost or pricing data must be fully explained in the proposal. Failure to explain any significant inconsistencies may demonstrate the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of the work required. Accordingly, the cost proposal must be sufficient to establish the reasonableness, realism and completeness of the proposed cost/price. Further, any modifications made to the initial proposal must likewise be thoroughly supported in writing regardless of whether such changes are made during negotiations or at the time of a proposal revision. The Government contemplates the award of cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) completion form contracts resulting from this BAA. The Government does not anticipate that the condition for adequate price competition in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) will exist. Submission of cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 is, therefore, required as part of the cost proposal if the cost proposal value is $550,000 or greater. If the proposed cost is less than $550,000, then information other than cost or pricing data may be requested as described in FAR 15.403-3. Cover Page shall include the words “Cost 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)Contracting/Business contact (name, address, phone/fax, electronic mail address); 6)Period of Performance (duration of effort); 7)Summary statement of proposed costs and fee; and 8)Cognizant DCAA and DCMA point of contact, address, phone/fax, and electronic mail address (if available). Part 1 shall provide a detailed breakdown of all costs by cost category by Offeror’s fiscal year and proposed fee: 1)Direct Labor – Individual labor category or person, with associated labor hours and unburdened direct labor rates; 2)Indirect Costs – Fringe Benefits, Overhead, G&A, COM, etc. (Must show base amount and rate); 3)Proposed contractor-acquired equipment, such as, but not limited to, computer hardware for proposed research projects should be specifically itemized with costs or estimated costs, if it is being proposed as a direct cost. An explanation of any estimating factors, including their derivation and application, shall be provided. Please include a brief description of the Offeror’s procurement method to be used (competition, price comparison, market value, etc.); 4)Materials shall be specifically itemized with description of proposed items and associated number of units, unit costs and total amount. An explanation of any estimating factors, including their derivation and application, shall be provided. Please include a brief description of the Offeror’s procurement method to be used (competition, price comparison, market value, etc.); 5)Travel – Estimated cost of travel along with number of trips, number of people, number of days per trip, departure and arrival destinations, etc. (Travel will be required to witness Phase II testing. For cost estimating use a destination of Leonardo, NJ for these trips.); 6)Subcontracts – For subcontracted work, identify the item/services to be subcontracted and the basis for which the subcontractor was selected. Identify the type of contractual arrangement contemplated, and provide a price analysis of the proposed subcontract in accordance with FAR 15-404-1(b). Provide a price analysis concerning reasonableness, realism and completeness of each subcontractor’s proposal. A separate cost proposal for each subcontractor will be required with the same level of detail as the prime Offeror’s cost proposal. (The subcontractor’s cost proposal can be provided in a sealed envelope with the Offeror’s cost proposal or submitted by the subcontractor directly to the Government by the due date for receipt of proposals.); 7)Consultants – Provide consultant agreement or other document which verifies the proposed loaded daily/hourly rate; 8)Other Direct Costs shall be itemized with description of proposed items and associated number of units, unit costs and total amount. Backup documentation shall be submitted to support proposed costs; and 9)Proposed Fee/Profit, including fee percentage. Part 2 shall provide a cost breakdown by task/subtask corresponding to the same task breakdown (using the same task numbers) in the proposed Statement of Work and giving clear and separate costs for Phase I and Phase II. V. SIGNIFICANT DATES AND TIMES Anticipated Schedule of Events Release Request for ProposalsJune 16, 2009 Proposal Due DateJuly 31, 2009 Contract Award(s)*October 1, 2009 Kickoff MeetingApproximately 14 Days after Contract Award(s) Phase I Events Technical Design Review MeetingTBD Mid-term Progress ReviewFebruary 2010 Phase I Final ReportJune 2010 Phase II Events Technical Design Review MeetingTBD Tank Testing at OHMSETJuly 2011 Final Report Submittal30 Days after completion of Testing. * These dates and times are estimates as of the date of this announcement. VI. EVALUATION INFORMATION Evaluation Criteria Technical – Technical Merit, Staffing, and Past Performance are equally weighted. 1. Technical Merit - Comprised of the following equally weighted subcriteria: a.Degree to which device meets requirements b.Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the problem including the tactical feasibility with current state of technology associated with heavy oil recovery and the technical effort needed to improve current capabilities; c.Technology readiness; d.Degree of innovation; e.Completeness of Design Package f.Degree to which development is needed 2. Staffing – The relevant skills, experience, and education of proposed technical personnel critical to success. 3. Past Performance – Comprised of the following equally weighted subcriteria: a. The relevance of the Offeror’s submitted experience; b. Customer ratings Cost 1. The Reasonability/Realism of the proposed cost: a.Total cost relative to benefit; b.Reasonability and Realism of cost levels for facilities and staffing. Evaluation Panel Technicaland cost proposals submitted under this BAA will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 3.104-4 and 15.207. The cognizant program officer and other Government scientific experts will perform the evaluation of technical proposals. Cost proposals will be evaluated by Government business professionals. VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION 1.Administrative Requirements •The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code – The NAICS code for this announcement is 541710 with a small business size standard of 500 employees. •Central Contractor Registry (CCR) - Successful Offerors will be required to register in the CCR prior to award of any contract. Information on CCR registration is available at http://www.ccr.gov or by calling 1-888-227-2423. •Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) – Successful Offerors will be required to register in the ORCA prior to award of any contract. Information on ORCA registration is available at http://orca.bpn.gov. •Subcontracting Plans - Successful contract proposals that exceed $500,000, 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. Reporting The following is a sample of reporting deliverables typically required under a research effort. However, specific deliverables should be proposed by each Offeror and finalized with the Contracting Officer: Detailed Technical Data Technical and Financial Progress Reports Presentation Material(s) Other Documentation or Reports, as required Final Report VIII. OTHER INFORMATION Project Meetings and Reviews Individual program reviews with the RDC sponsor will be held as necessary. Program status reviews will also be held to provide a forum for reviews of the latest results from experiments and any other incremental progress towards the major demonstrations. For Statement of Work/costing purposes, Offerors should assume that the kick-off meeting will be done via teleconferencing with RDC, New London, CT; two trips/meetings (one for each phase) will be to OHMSETT, Leonardo, NJ or a test facility designated by the Government; and the rest will be at the Offeror’s site. Interim meetings are likely, but these may be accomplished via video telephone conferences, telephone conferences, or via web-based collaborations tools.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/USCG/USCGRDC/HSCG32-09-R-R00024/listing.html)
 

Record

SN01846420-W 20090618/090616235918-9e86bac2ee6a82b9f7579c28311e5336 (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 |