Phillips Laboratory/PKLA, Directorate of Contracting, Lasers & Imaging Division, 2252 Maxwell Ave, Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5777

A -- ADVANCED ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEM (AEOS) LONG WAVE INFRARED (LSWIR) IMAGER SOL F29601-95-R-0021 DUE 063095 POC Mike Vigil, PL/LII 505 846 6202, Kim Reeder, PL/PKA, 505 846 0077. Phillips Laboratory, Lasers and Imaging Directorate (PL/LII) is interested in receiving proposals for the research effort described below. This solicitation and resulting award shall be made in accordance with the Research and Development Streamlined Contracting Procedures (RDSCP) described in DFARS 235.70. This is the solicitation, there will be no formal RFP or RFQ. The name, address and telephone number of the representative of the contracting officer for this solicitation is shown as POC above. This solicitation consists of this notice, any subsequent amendments, and a supplemental package which is available by writing to the above address. Offerors who did not respond to synopsis PLL5-079 published 95MAR07, and revised 95APR24, should provide, in writing, their complete address information to Phillips Laboratory (see above address) in order to receive any subsequent amendments and the supplemental package (if applicable). All of the mandatory terms, clauses and provisions at DFARS 235.7006, Research and Development Streamlined Contracting format, and the following optional items are incorporated by reference: B.5, C.2, E.1, E.4, G.2, G.3, G.4, I.42, i.43, I.44, I.47, I.49, I.54, I.63, I.65, I.66, I.67, I.68, I.69, i.70, I.73, I.74, I.76, I.81, I.82, I.84, I.85, I.87, I.88, I.94, i.95, I.96, I.97, I.100, I.107, I.108, I.127, I.129, I.131, I.132, i.136, I.138, I.144, I.145, I.146, I.147, I.148, I.153, I.155, i.157, I.159, I.161, I.163, I.164, I.169, I.167, L.14, M.2. This solicitation includes clauses and provisions from FAR 1990 edition updated through FAC 90-25 and DFARS 1991 edition updated through DAC 91-6. The standard evaluation factors found in Section M of DFARS 235.7006 are modified as follows: Provision M.2 Proposal Evaluation Procedures and Basis for Award, subparagraph (ii)(A) Technical and (B) Cost, are replaced with the following: (A). Evaluation of the Management/Technical Area: The management/technical evaluation will focus on the methodology of producing the end product. The evaluation of this area will be divided into six equally important factors as follows: Factor 1: Program Management. Evaluation of this factor will equally consider the following: i)schedule, ii)management plan, including organizational structure, program control and cost/schedule control procedures, iii) corporate and personnel experience, and iv) unpriced basis of estimate. Factor 2: Systems Engineering. Evaluation of this factor will consider the offeror's approach and capabilities for defining an integrated and supportable system in a cost effective implementation. The modeling and design pathway and associated methods for objectively addressing performance trades will be critically assessed. Discussions will be evaluated for clarity in demonstrating the proposed design's potential for meeting the performance specifications in the Statement of Work (SOW). Of particular importance will be the predicted Noise Equivalent Power (NEP) of the sensor, including the underlying assumptions, equations, and parameter values used to predict NEP and their relation to the proposed design. Factor 3. System Development. Evaluation of this factor will equally consider the following topics for each proposed subsystem: i) offeror's understanding of the requirements and how system-level performance and operational requirements flow down to the subsystems, ii) soundness of approach for meeting the subsystem requirements, iii)approach for hardware fabrication and software development, and iv)extent to which developmental cost and performance risk can be minimized by use of existing designs and commercially available hardware and software. Factor 4. Radiometric Calibration. Evaluation of this factor will consider the approach to radiometric calibration, including the calibration process, the required measurements, and the uncertainty in reduced mission data. Discussions will be evaluated for clarity in addressing the following: i)definition of the components of total calibration uncertainty and how each component will be measured or estimated, ii) approach for end-to-end system calibration (e.g., including the AEOS telescope), and iii) content, frequency, and operational impact of in situ calibrations. The proposed methods and algorithms for estimation of target temperatures will also be closely evaluated. Factor 5. System Integration and Test. Evaluation of this factor will equally consider the offeror's approach and capabilities with regard to the following: i)integration of the subsystems into a deliverable system, ii)testing to demonstrate that all specifications listed in the SOW are met by the delivered system, and iii)integration of system hardware and software into the AEOS facility. Factor 6. Training. Evaluation of this factor will consider the offeror's approach and capabilities for training designated personnel in the operation and maintenance of the system and for providing specific training to designated engineers and technicians. Specific attention will be given to the training course structure, its suitability for both classroom and self directed study, and how it will make use of materials submitted to satisfy CDRL items. (B) Evaluation of the Cost Area. The cost proposal will be evaluated for realism, completeness and reasonableness. Each cost element will be evaluated as well as the total estimated cost.. The cost element breakdown will include but not be limited to labor hours, labor rates (direct and indirect), material and other direct costs as required to determine cost realism and reasonableness. The Government will assess the Most Probable Cost (MPC) of the offeror's proposed approach. i) Realism. Realism is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of the proposed costs with the scope and effort described in the Management/Technical proposal. Nonconforming offers may be disqualified from further consideration based on cost realism. ii) Completeness. Completeness is evaluated by verifying that the cost proposal contains sufficient data and wupporting documentation to support the proposed costs. The traceability of all estimates, including subcontract information, will be evaluated. To ensure traceability of all estimates, each cost element will be evaluated by contractor fiscal year. Subcontracts exceeding $25,000 will be evaluated at the same level of detail as the prime contract. All subcontract data must arrive at the Government office at the same time as cost and price data from the prime contractor. iii) Reasonableness. Reasonableness is evaluated by examining the offeror's methodology and assumptions used in preparing the cost proposal, including the basis for the proposed labor mix, and rates, identification of cost drivers, and risk assessment and mitigation. The mere statement that a cost is proposed without inclusion of data to document how that cost was estimated may be inadequate. The offeror should apply generally accepted accounting principles and comply with those practices in preparing the cost proposal. A Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF)completion type contract is contemplated. The estimated period of performance is 34 months commencing on or about 95AUG15 which includes 3 months for writing and reviewing the final report. It is expected that this contract will be awarded based upon a determination that there is adequate price competition, therefore, the offeror is not required to submit or certify cost or pricing data with its proposal. If, after receipt of the proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.804-3, the offeror shall provide certified cost or pricing data as required by the Contracting Officer. To be responsive to this solicitation, submit 9 copies of your Technical proposal and 4 copies of your Cost proposal and one copy of your Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) no later than 1500 hours, 95JUN30, addressed to: Phillips Laboratory, DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING, Attn: Kim M. Reeder, PL/PKLA, 2251 MAXWELL AVE SE, KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117-5772. The page limitations for technical and cost proposals are specified in DFARS 252.235-7006 (L.24). A Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) is in the supplemental package. The DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List, is included in the supplemental package. The technical requirements, including the reporting requirements, are contained in the supplemental package. The objectives of this effort are to design, fabricate, radiometrically calibrate, install, integrate, and test a Long Wave Infrared (LWIR) Imager for use with the Advanced Electro-Optical System (AEOS) telescope. The primary use of the LWIR Imager will be Space Object Identification (SOI), accomplished with target imagery and surface temperature measurements. (0144)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0002 19950525\A-0002.SOL)