Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF JANUARY 22, 2016 FBO #5173
MODIFICATION

A -- USAF Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Sense and Avoid (SAA)

Notice Date

1/20/2016
 

Notice Type

Modification/Amendment
 

NAICS

334511 — Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing
 

Contracting Office

Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFLCMC/PK - WPAFB (includes PZ, WL, WW, WI, WN, WK, LP, WF, WK), 2275 D Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 45433-7218, United States
 

ZIP Code

45433-7218
 

Solicitation Number

FA8620-16-R-4007
 

Archive Date

3/1/2016
 

Point of Contact

Vincent Crum,
 

E-Mail Address

vincent.crum@us.af.mil
(vincent.crum@us.af.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

USAF Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Sense and Avoid (SAA) Request f or I n f o r m a t i on: This request for information (RFI) constitutes neither a Request for Proposal or an Invitation for Bid. It does not restrict the Government to an ultimate acquisition approach. This RFI should not be construed as a commitment by the Government for any purpose. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION; this is an RFI only in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-3 - Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (Oct 1997). This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a guarantee to issue an RFP in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. 1. Background and Sco p e : As weapon systems have become increasingly complex, so have the environments in which they are expected to operate. Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Sense and Avoid (SAA) capabilities must enable RPAs to maintain safe separation to include avoiding collisions as well as safely integrate with other airspace users across the full range of operations in global airspace environments. The global airspace includes operations in National Airspace (NAS), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)/international airspace to include Due Regard, and Military Airspace (MAS). Federal Aviation Rule (FAR) 91-113 requires the pilot to "see and avoid" other traffic. Because RPAs have no onboard pilot, RPA require a SAA capability which enables the RPA to operate safely in airspace with other users. The SAA capability must be able to provide safe-separation to include avoiding collisions. The Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Airspace Integration was validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) on September 25, 2015. The Air Combat Command (ACC) and Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) have begun a Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) guided pre-Materiel Development Decision (MDD) effort developing pre-Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) documentation for the capability gap of SAA only. Any technology development effort that falls within a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) designation of 3 through 9 is of interest under this RFI. T R L description and details can be found at the following website http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/tasks/technology-readiness-level and are summarized below for convenience. NOTE: SAA s olutions must be able to attain TRL 6 by 2020 in order to be considered a potential viable solution. TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties. TRL 2: Technology concept and/or application formulated. Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies. TRL 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept. Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative. TRL 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment. Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory. TRL 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment. Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can be tested in a simulated environment. TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment. Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. TRL 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. Prototype near, or at, planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment such as an aircraft, vehicle, or space. TRL 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications. TRL: 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations. Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) applicability is an important consideration. MRL description and details can be found at the following website http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/careerfields/manufacturing-readiness-levelmanufact and are summarized below for convenience. NOTE: SAA solutions must be able to attain TRL 6 by 2020 in order to be considered a potential viable solution. MRL 6 references applicability of TRL 6. MRL 1 Basic Manufacturing Implications Identified. Basic research expands scientific principles that may have manufacturing implications. The focus is on a high level assessment of manufacturing opportunities. The research is unfettered. MRL 2 Manufacturing Concepts Identified. This level is characterized by describing the application of new manufacturing concepts. Applied research translates basic research into solutions for broadly defined military needs. MRL 3 Manufacturing Proof of Concept Developed. This level begins the validation of the manufacturing concepts through analytical or laboratory experiments. Experimental hardware models have been developed in a laboratory environment that may possess limited functionality. MRL 4 Capability to produce the technology in a laboratory environment. This level of readiness acts as an exit criterion for the MSA Phase approaching a Milestone A decision. Technologies should have matured to at least TRL 4. This level indicates that the technologies are ready for the Technology Development Phase of acquisition. Producibility assessments of design concepts have been completed. Key design performance parameters have been identified as well as any special tooling, facilities, material handling and skills required. MRL 5 Capability to produce prototype components in a production relevant environment. Manufacturing strategy refined and integrated with Risk Management Plan. Identification of enabling/critical technologies and components is complete. Prototype materials, tooling and test equipment, as well as personnel skills have been demonstrated on components in a production relevant environment, but many manufacturing processes and procedures are still in development. MRL 6 Capability to produce a prototype system or subsystem in a production relevant environment. This MRL is associated with readiness for a Milestone B decision to initiate an acquisition program by entering into the EMD Phase of acquisition. Technologies should have matured to at least TRL 6. The majority of manufacturing processes have been defined and characterized, but there are still significant engineering and/or design changes in the system itself. MRL 7 Capability to produce systems, subsystems, or components in a production representative environment. System detailed design activity is nearing completion. Material specifications have been approved and materials are available to meet the planned pilot line build schedule. Manufacturing processes and procedures have been demonstrated in a production representative environment. Detailed producibility trade studies are completed and producibility enhancements and risk assessments are underway. Technologies should be on a path to achieve TRL 7. MRL 8 Pilot line capability demonstrated; ready to begin Low Rate Initial Production. The system, component or item has been previously produced, is in production, or has successfully achieved low rate initial production. Technologies should have matured to TRL 9. This level of readiness is normally associated with readiness for entry into Full Rate Production (FRP). All systems engineering/design requirements should have been met such that there are minimal system changes. Major system design features are stable and have been proven in test and evaluation. MRL 9 Low rate production demonstrated; Capability in place to begin Full Rate Production. The system, component or item has been previously produced, is in production, or has successfully achieved low rate initial production. Technologies should have matured to TRL 9. This level of readiness is normally associated with readiness for entry into Full Rate Production (FRP). All systems engineering/design requirements should have been met such that there are minimal system changes. MRL 10 Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place. Technologies should have matured to TRL 9. This level of manufacturing is normally associated with the Production or Sustainment phases of the acquisition life cycle. Engineering/design changes are few and generally limited to quality and cost improvements. System, components or items are in full rate production and meet all engineering, performance, quality and reliability requirements. Manufacturing process capability is at the appropriate quality level. 2. Capability Requirements: The purpose of this RFI is to determine existing and emerging Developmental, Commercial-off-the Shelf (COTS), or Government-off-the-Shelf (GOTS) technology solutions to address the requirements for RPA SAA. The focus of this effort is on Group 4 and 5 RPAs only at this time. Respondents are encouraged to include Group 4 and 5 technology solutions that may transition or apply to Groups 1, 2, and 3, but the primary focus of this RFI is on Group 4 and 5 RPAs. RPA Group descriptions can be found in RPA Vector: Vision and Enabling Concepts 2013-2038 at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/RPA-Groups. The solution responses are expected to include, but not limited to, descriptions for the following attributes: •· Solutions that addresses the attributes, metrics, and values in Table 1 •· Strategies for airworthiness certification (e.g. MIL-HNBK-516 C, or most current) and operational approval of the proposed solution •· Information Assurance and Cyber Security implementation •· Solution characteristics of Open Systems / Open Architectures which are highly desirable for a SAA solution •· Strategies for adherence / certification to quality management practices (e.g. SAE AS9100C, "Quality Management Systems: Requirements for Aviation") •· Technology Readiness Level (TRL) •· Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) •· Strategies for reliability and maintainability •· Strategies for system security and survivability •· Strategies for addressing Critical Program Information (CPI) Table 1 - SAA Capability Requirements SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE 1 3. Cost and Technical Detail Information: Cost information requested should accompany and /or be associated with the technical input provided. The government prefers that any proposed systems or subsystems submitted within the RFI be accompanied with a Cost Element Structure (CES) or tiered Work Breakdown Structure (WBS); refer to Military Standard (MIL-STD)-881C to better understand the level of information requested for each element addressed. Submission should include the ground rules and assumptions used to derive such estimates; if actual (vice estimates) data is provided, please notate whether cost information comes from a DCAA certified accounting system. Within the responses, please highlight if these systems and/or components have been used by the government before under other programs or efforts. It is important to understand how the cost estimates are derived; please include any applicable cost and risk drivers for the parameters given. All technical and descriptive information is welcomed to include size, weight, cooling, and power (SWCaP) requirements of the proposed system, estimated Source Lines of Code (SLOC) of Effort, Software Integration efforts. For each software module proposed, please describe the technical approach to fulfill the functional requirements. Explain whether the approach is to use new code, reuse code, apply a COTS/GOTS solution, or any combination thereof. Please quantify combinations with percentages. If applicable, address software module interdependencies. Please characterize magnitude and complexity of the required software; requesting estimate of the software size by Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) in Source Lines of Code (SLOC). When providing the software sizing estimate, provide the software language that will be used, as well as, percentage of new software, percentage of modified software, percentage of reused software, and percentage of auto-code software. If the approach assumes use of Off-the-Shelf (OTS) software, please provide an estimate of the licensing fees and integration cost required. In addition, any insight into the fuel and/or energy implication of your system (e.g. power, cooling) is highly desired. System operation description and logistical footprint required for the solution are also desirable. The RFI response should indicate the use of any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) that is considered part of the solution. Each RFI response should also include a roadmap identifying the timeline for technology development and maturation. 4. Instructions to Potential Respondents: This is NOT a Request for Proposal. AFLCMC/WIN is seeking white papers with new and novel solution concepts and highly encourages submission of updated data that may be well known and previously documented. Additionally, efforts managed or tracked by other Services (Army, Navy, Marines) and agencies (NASA, DHS, etc.) are encouraged to respond. Interested vendors who desire to participate in this market survey and potential demonstration event are encouraged to submit white papers that demonstrate they presently have the concepts, technology, and qualifications to satisfy the capability requirements as described above. White papers should be prepared in Microsoft Word format using 1-inch margins and Times New Roman font size not less than 11pt. White papers for each technology should be no more than 25 pages in length and should address, at a minimum, the following topics: •· Describe how the solution addresses the capability requirements •· Describe cost information as it relates to each solution •· Discuss limitations the respondent foresees with the use of their solution White papers should describe their technologies (TRL and MRL 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9) and, as applicable, discuss the ability to produce, deliver, and sustain existing technologies (TRL 7, 8, or 9). Cost and technical risk should also be addressed in the white paper to include risk mitigation steps. White papers should indicate if the proposed technology has been sold or licensed to the US Government and/or any other organization or if it has been tested by a DoD Agency or independent third party. Papers should include relevant points of contact for each organization. The white paper should indicate if the technology was developed under a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), or other government-funded contract vehicle and declare details of the effort including the contract number and funding amount. RESPONSES ARE DUE 15 February 2016 at 04:00 PM EST. All technical questions should be addressed to Mr. Vincent Crum at the email address located at the bottom of this RFI. White papers should be submitted electronically via email and two printed copies should be mailed to the address located at the bottom of this RFI. Responses shall include the following information: 1. Company/Institute name 2. Address 3. Point of Contact 4. Cage Code 5. DUNS Number 6. Phone Number 7. E-mail Address 8. Web page URL 9. All prospective contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database to be awarded a DoD contract. If applicable, state whether your company qualifies as a: a. Small Business (Yes/No) b. Woman Owned Small Business (Yes/No) c. Small Disadvantaged Business (Yes/No) d. 8(a) Certified (Yes/No) e. HUB Zone Certified (Yes/No) f. Veteran Owned Small Business (Yes/No) g. Service Disabled Small Business (Yes/No) h. Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (Yes/No) i. Statement as to whether your company is domestically or foreign owned (if foreign owned, please indicate country of ownership). j. Provide prospective small business utilization percentages (if the acquisition is not set- aside for small business) Companies may be contacted if we need further information to fully understand the marketplace. AFLCMC/WIN is not at this time seeking proposals, and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the US Government will not pay for any information or administrative cost incurred in response to this RFI. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the responding party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued. Small Businesses are encouraged to provide responses to this RFI in order to assist AFLCMC in determining potential levels of competition available in the industry, as well as helping to establish a basis for developing any subsequent potential subcontract plan goal percentages. Market research results will assist the Air Force in determining whether this requirement will be a full and open, a small business set aside, or a sole source future acquisition. If it is a small business set-aside, FAR 52.219-14, limitations on subcontracting will apply. Therefore, small businesses that want to demonstrate consideration for a small business set-aside should demonstrate how they could comply. Teaming and/or subcontracting arrangements should be clearly delineated and previous experience in teaming may be provided. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the US Government to form a binding contract. It is the responsibility of the interested parties to monitor the FedBizOpps (FBO) site for additional information pertaining to this RFI. Respondents should indicate which portions of their responses are proprietary and should mark them accordingly. All information received in response to this RFI that is properly marked as "proprietary" will be handled accordingly. Proprietary information must be clearly marked on the outside container and on the materials inside. The Government shall not be liable for, or suffer any consequential damages, for any proprietary information not properly identified. Respondents should indicate which, if any, portions of their responses are International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restricted and should mark them accordingly. All information received in response to this RFI that is properly marked as ITAR restricted will be handled accordingly. ITAR restricted information must be clearly marked on the outside container and on the materials inside. Vendors who submit white papers that demonstrate viable solutions or capabilities may be invited to participate in one or more events to demonstrate their technologies. Specific information regarding technology demonstration events will be based on the number of white papers received and technologies selected for demonstration. The Government reserves the right to not conduct technology demonstrations. All requests for further information must be made in writing or via email. Telephone requests for additional information will not be honored. All questions and answers regarding this RFI will be posted as updates to this notice. The Government reserves the right to not address questions received after 5 February 2016. RFI Response Mailing Address: Mr. Vincent Crum Vehicle Control Branch Air Force Research Laboratory AFRL/RQQC 2210 8TH ST BLDG 146 RM 122 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH 45433 Technical Point of Contact: Vincent Crum vincent.crum@us.af.mil For Classified Technical Question, please address the following Technical Points of Contact: SIPRnet Vincent Crum vincent.w.crum.civ@mail.smil.mil JWICS Ed Huling Edward.Huling@afmc.ic.gov ***15 January 2016 Update: RFI qestions and answers have been posted as an attachment to this announcement.*** ***20 January 2016 Update: Additional POCs for classified responses have been added to the posting above.**
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/ASC/FA8620-16-R-4007/listing.html)
 

Place of Performance

Address: Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 45433, United States

Zip Code: 45433
 

Record

SN03996811-W 20160122/160120235028-abd8fbd625b0a00ace252e1e73e3ee5b (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 |