Commander, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Code 210000D, 1 Administration Circle, China Lake, CA 93555-6001

A -- BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF X-BAND ACTIVE ELECTRONICALLY SCANNED ARRAY TRANSMIT/RECEIVE MODULES SOL N68936-96-R-0282 DUE 083096 POC Jerry Manley, Contract Specialist, (619) 939-4273 or Doreen Paul, Contracting Officer, (619) 939-9665. The Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWCWPNS) China Lake, CA is sponsoring a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for manufacturing research and development of X-band Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Transmit/Receive (T/R) modules to make manufacturing costs significantly less than current designs. The module design shall be driven by requirements for future Navy ships. An option shall be proposed to expand the design to meet airborne radar requirements, making maximum use of commonality. The thrust of this effort is to create design and manufacturing innovations to achieve per element module cost of $300 after the first 20,000 modules production. Questions of a technical nature concerning this requirement may be addressed to: ERICH MUSCHINSKE PHONE: (619)-939-6514 CODE 472G10D (256D) FAX: (619)-939-0151 NAVAIRWARCENWPNDIV, 1 ADMINISTRATION CIRCLE, CHINA LAKE, CA 93555-6100. E-MAIL: eric_muschinske@ mlngw.chinalake.navy.mil Background: AESA radars demonstrate excellent potential for expanding the capability, improving the reliability and lowering the life cycle costs of ship based, aircraft and missile radars. However, current production costs for T/R modules make the initial acquisition of AESA radars cost prohibitive for most of these applications. To make AESA radars affordable, a major technology paradigm shift must be effected to bring module production costs down to an average of $300 or less after the first Engineering Model Development (EMD) next generation shipborne radar is completed. The purpose of this program is to develop T/R module designs and manufacturing methods, meeting the performance and interface requirements for future Navy combatants, while demonstrating that these designs are capable of meeting the $300 cost goal. This effort must complete within 18 months so that low cost T/R module technology can be inserted into near-term shipboard and airborne radar system development schedules. Requirements: Offerors who can demonstrate previous experience in manufacturing T/R modules for AESA applications and who have existing facilities for high rate manufacturing are invited to submit proposals for the development and pilot manufacturing run of a low cost X-band T/R module. The anticipated performance period is 18 months. The short length of this program puts a premium on rapid manufacturing technology development. Additionally, potential follow-on contracts will require all offerors to possess TOP SECRET facility and personnel security clearances. Teaming of offerors to achieve these goals is encouraged. Classified annexes to the proposals, if required, should be coordinated with Mr. Muschinske at the above address. Production cost is the greatest driver in this program. Much of the success of the program depends on accurately predicting module cost. To this end, the offeror must analytically explain why his approach is inherently low cost. A significant part of this effort is a cost model needed to accurately track cost and predicted changes to cost as module specifications and requirements change. This cost model should include components, substrates, packaging, interconnects, capital equipment, labor and testing. The cost model should be based on past and current cost history. The T/R module specifications must be consistent with a contractor defined radar design concept capable of meeting mission requirements for future Navy combatants and cost less than $300 to produce. The successful offeror(s) shall establish T/R module performance specifications as a flowdown of trade analysis for concepts meeting radar mission requirements versus projected module costs. An analytic cost model shall be established and used to track T/R module cost projections throughout the program. The offeror shall start with a baseline radar design concept, based on current state-of-the-art module designs, and show design trades that can significantly reduce system cost without sacrificing the radar's mission capability. The offeror should strive to keep the components and interfaces of the T/R module common across ship based, airborne and missile applications. This will permit the lowest possible cost by allowing the greatest economies of scale in module production. The offeror(s) shall supply a T/R module design that gives adequate consideration to the array structure needed to support the module. Provision is needed for array cooling, control and signal manifolding. The module design shall facilitate reducing the manufacturing cost of these support structures and functions. The module design must support a significant reduction in the total manufacturing cost of the radar system, not merely shift costs from the module to the supporting array structure. For example, moving circulators outside of the module to the array structure does not reduce costs for the purposes of this program. The offeror shall design and build a small quantity (contractor proposed) of modules to verify performance and then, following Government approval, build 100 modules to test manufacturing improvements. As an option, the offeror shall propose to manufacture 1000 modules. This option shall be exercised at contract award and shall have the same period of performance as the basic contract. The module manufacturing run shall be tested to verify performance and assess reliability. Statistical performance and reliability data shall be collected and analyzed to show life cycle costs are reduced. A cost analysis shall be submitted to show that the goal of $300 per module can be reached after 20,000 modules production in FY 2000. As an additional option, the offeror shall propose to manufacture 100 modules to support the offeror's notional airborne intercept AESA concept. This option shall have the same reporting requirements as the basic contract. This option shall be exercised within 6 months of the start of contract, contingent on funding availability, and shall complete by the end of the basic contract. Because the thrust of this program is reducing overall AESA manufacturing cost, a common interface is needed for all of the applications. Previously each AESA had its own unique, proprietary interface to modules, controllers and the array structure. For this effort, the offeror shall propose a new interface for RF and control signals and a physical interface which shall become Government property at the end of the contract. The object is to have a common interface for all modules in future AESA radars. The interface developed on this program will likely become the DoD standard interface for future AESA designs. Deliverables: Data deliverables include a monthly progress report in contractor format consisting of technical progress, cost, schedule and management summaries and plans for the next month. A report detailing how the modules would be incorporated into an array shall be delivered at the time of the manufacturing test module Critical Design Review (CDR). Periodic reviews will be held based on program milestones. Offerors should bid based on 3 reviews and one working group (WOG) meeting at the contractor's location. The Kickoff Review shall present the offeror's module/array concept, cost model, cost analysis based on the model, identify risk items and critical components, and present program and module build schedules. The Preliminary Design WOG meeting shall show the preliminary module design, the preliminary array structure design, a cost model update, and demonstration results for any critical components. The module CDR shall present the final module design, cost modeling update, and prototype module performance results. The Final Review shall present the statistical manufacturing results of the manufacturing test run, the module performance statistics, reliability assessment and the cost analysis based on the manufacturing test run. The contractor shall provide a final report detailing module design, performance and reliability. A section covering manufacturing improvements shall be included. The electrical and physical interface specification, including drawings shall be delivered. The final report shall also contain a cost analysis based on the manufacturing test run detailing how a final cost of $300 per module would be obtained under high rate production. The contractor shall deliver half of the prototype modules, two RF test fixtures and controller documentation to the Government at the start of the module manufacturing run. Half of each month's finished modules shall be delivered to the Government in the month following their manufacture. All remaining modules shall be delivered to the Government at the end of the contract. The funding profile for the program is $6,800,000 in FY97 and $2,200,000 in FY98. The Government intends to award up to two contracts from this funding. Additional contracts may be funded as money becomes available. PART II: PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION Preparation: All proposals should include the information specified in this announcement. Any proprietary data supplied for evaluation purposes only must be clearly and specifically identified. Restrictive markings on proposals must clearly indicate any limitations on the disclosure of the contents. In the absence of any such identification, it will be assumed the Government has unlimited rights to all data in the proposal. The offeror shall develop and provide a Statement of Work (SOW) for incorporation into the resulting contract. The SOW shall contain sufficient information for the Government to gain insight into how the offeror will conduct the trade studies, design and manufacturing tests. The technical portion of the proposal shall contain the following: 1) A two page summary explaining the technical approach and the cost modeling proposed. 2) A section of no more than 10 pages detailing the technical approach to achieving the $300 module including the cost drivers for overall module cost and the path for lowering each component cost to reach the $300 goal. 3) A section of no more than 10 pages detailing the offeror's radar design concept, trade studies and module performance upon which the $300 modules and array structure will be based. 4) A section of no more than 5 pages showing the offeror's concept of how this module would fit into a low cost array structure, including estimates of cost, power and cooling for the structure. 5) A section of no more than 10 pages detailing the cost models used to forecast the $300 module cost including past cost history, current costs and assumptions used for each area of cost reduction. 6) A section showing all GFE/GFI needed for the contract and naming all major subcontractors. The management portion shall contain the following: 1) A section of no more than 10 pages describing the management organization and structure including cost and schedule controls. 2) A section containing resumes of key personnel emphasizing recent T/R module related performance and experience. 3a) A section briefly describing the facilities and equipment to be used in the contract, including the ability to protect classified information up to the TOP SECRET level. 3b) Evidence supporting past experience in building X-band T/R modules for AESA applications, and evidence of existing manufacturing facilities for high rate T/R module production. 4) A list of technically related contracts the offeror has performed in the last three years, including base price and any modifications or changes to the final price and any changes to schedule or deliveries. This list shall show the contract number, name and phone number of the cognizant contracts person. The cost proposal shall be submitted as a separate document. It should contain the following: 1) A cost breakout by task and sub-task down to the third WBS level, tied to a detailed program timeline. 2) Any required supporting cost information. Cost and technical proposals shall remain valid for 360 days. Submission: Proposals may be submitted anytime before 1500 Pacific Daylight Saving Time on the day listed in block 10 of this announcement. Early submissions are encouraged. Proposals should be addressed to: Commander Code 210000D, Attention: Jerry Manley NAVAIRWARCENWPNDIV 1 Administration Circle China Lake, CA 93555-6001. To expedite evaluation, multiple copies of the proposals shall be submitted. Six copies of the technical portion, four copies of the management portion, and three copies of the cost portion shall be submitted. Foreign contractors should be aware that restrictions may apply which could preclude their participation in this acquisition. A request for determination of NOFORN disclosure has been submitted, but no determination has yet been made by the Navy International Programs Office (NIPO). The technical portion of the proposal may be classified up to the SECRET level. If an annex at a higher classification is required, it must be coordinated with Mr. Muschinske. PART III: PROPOSAL EVALUATION Proposals submitted in response to the BAA will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria which includes Technical, Past Performance, and Cost categories. The technical proposal must give clear, detailed information sufficient to enable evaluation based on the criteria listed below. The Technical and Past Performance categories are equal in value and are of greater value than the Cost Realism category. TECHNICAL 1. The overall applicability to the Navy's mission and the suitability of approach presented in the conceptual design, the suitability of the T/R module for shipboard, aircraft and missile applications, and the probability of the technology being a viable candidate for insertion into an operational system. The assessment of a shipborne radar based on the T/R module concept to protect of Navy ships against Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles. The assessed contribution of the system concept to ship radar signature. Demonstration of the concept to meet the cost goals of the program. 2. The technical merits of the proposed approach with emphasis on new, innovative techniques that reduce manufacturing costs while maintaining radar performance. The ability of the offeror to develop a module design that also decreases the cost of AESA supporting structures, reducing overall AESA acquisition costs. Under the category of Technical, both subfactors are equal in value. PAST PERFORMANCE 1. Past Performance considering the offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, experience of the principal investigator and of the team's key personnel in the design, development and manufacturing of T/R modules. COST 1. The reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost and fees. It is the policy of NAWCWPNS to treat all proposals as privileged information before award and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. Discussion will be opened with those contractors whose offers were deemed of the highest interest to the Navy. The anticipated contract performance period is 18 months. The type of contract is cost plus fixed fee. None, one, or multiple contract awards will be made as a result of the proposals received. Additional awards may be made as funds become available. All options are independent and could be exercised individually, together or not at all. All responsible offerors will be considered for award. See note 26. (0193)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0001 19960712\A-0001.SOL)