R&D Contracting Directorate, Bldg 7, 2530 C Street, WPAFB, OH 45433-7607

A -- COLLABORATION WITHIN THE SUPPLY CHAIN: THE DESIGN PERSPECTIVE SOL BAA No. 98-13-MLKT DUE 051898 POC Contact Ms. Chris Lay, Contract Negotiator, 937-255-3506 or Ms. Patrice Nickell, Contracting Officer, 937-255-7143 INTRODUCTION: Air Force Research Laboratory, Manufacturing Technology Division (AFRL/MLM), is soliciting proposals (technical and cost) for the program entitled "Collaboration within the Supply Chain: The Design Perspective," that validate the benefits of supplier collaboration in aerospace weapon system design. The solicitation number is BAA-98-13-MLKT. Proposals in response to this BAA shall be received by 18 May 98, 1500 Eastern Daylight time, addressed to R&D Contracting Office, Building 7, 2530 C Street, Area B, ATTN: Ms. Chris Lay, AFRL/MLKT, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7607. This is an unrestricted solicitation. Proposals submitted shall be in accordance with this announcement. Proposals received after the cutoff date specified herein shall be treated in accordance with restrictions of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3). A copy of this provision may be obtained from the contracting point of contact. Offerors should be alert for any BAA amendments that may be published including those which permit a subsequent proposal submission date. Offerors should consult the "PRDA and BAA Guide for Industry." This guide was specifically designed to assist offerors in understanding the PRDA/BAA proposal process. Copies may be obtained from the contracting point of contact stated herein or on the Wright Research Site Contracting Office Web Page (www.wrs.afrl.af.mil/contract). B. REQUIREMENTS: (1) Technical Description: The objective of this program is to validate the benefits of customer-supplier collaboration in the design stage of aerospace weapon systems. Benefits derived from customer-supplier collaboration in design may include cost reduction, cycle time reduction, improved quality, increased flexibility, and other business advantages in product development and manufacturing; as well as, sustainment cost avoidance through improvements in reliability and maintainability. These benefits are derived through the implementation of relationships, tools, methods, and business practices that enable customer-supplier collaboration in the design stage of aerospace weapon systems. For the purposes of this program, the "customer" is a prime or major subsystem manufacturer and, the "supplier" is the manufacturer who supplies parts or subassemblies to the "customer." Earlier and more extensive supplier collaboration in design permits far greater leveraging of the full capabilities of the supply chain and incorporates manufacturing viewpoints earlier. Customer-supplier collaboration early in the design stage in commercial sectors has provided impressive results in improving the affordability of commercial products. This initiative is focused on establishing similar practices in the aerospace weapon system supply chains to achieve similar results. Successful bidders will focus their collaboration on the design of an aerospace weapon system or subsystem in the acquisition or support phase (e.g., Demonstration/Validation program, or Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Logistic Center/Depot program). The weapon system or subsystem will be targeted for Air Force systems (e.g., F-15, F-16, F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, Joint Direct Attack Munition, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle, etc). The scope of this initiative includes technical, business process, information infrastructure, or relationship problems or issues that erect serious barriers to collaborative design throughout a supply chain. Two mandatory requirements of this program are: 1) the problems to be attacked are generic and applicable to other defense companies and systems (i.e. not unique to the proposing company) and, 2) the solutions to the problems must be implemented within the proposed program. Typical design issues can be found throughout a spectrum that includes long lead items and items with high technology turnover rates. Examples of technical, business process, information infrastructure, and relationship problems can be illustrated by the issue of how to manage intellectual property when collaborating with a customer or supplier. Therecould be technical information infrastructure problems associated with how to control intellectual property information, how information from competing suppliers can be segregated and protected, and how the information is maintained and exchanged. There could be business process incompatibility problems stemming from two companies that lack sufficient trust, goal alignment, and "partnership thinking" for the supplier firm to be willing to share such information in the first place. Finally, there could be relationship issues associated with liability aspects of using and licensing intellectual property in future initiatives that involve parties other than the immediate customer and supplier. Any of these types of problems would be within scope; subject to the restrictions that the problem(s) to be attacked are generic to other defense companies and that the solution is demonstrated within the proposed program. The problems are likely to vary widely in type, complexity, and how the solution can be validated; and therefore, methods proposed to attack them are also likely to vary widely. Development and validation of solutions to problems should be performed within the program timeframe verifying the immediate impact of collaboration. In this initiative, the Air Force intends to award multiple programs. Successful proposals will address three interrelated elements: a) System Analysis -- analyze and describe the current supply chain management and collaboration strategies for both the customer and the supplier in terms of relationships, purpose, information, and context of both companies' business strategies, b) Solution Design and Implementation -- develop and implement the solution to the specific problem or set of problems, including relevant benchmarks from other companies, as well as identification of risk and approaches for risk mitigation, and c) Metrics and Measures -- develop and employ clear strategic, operational, and process metrics that link specific design collaboration actions to corporate strategies and business objectives. These metrics also must be linked to customer goals and requirements, and must lead to a clear business case and benchmark for the solution. This initiative is focused on those companies who have experience in supplier collaboration in design or, who are aggressively moving toward supplier collaboration in design and face significant risk in solving problems, requiring Air Force assistance in order to achieve desired levels of supplier participation. Given the nature of the problems addressed, appropriate industry cost sharing is also expected. To summarize, successful bidders will: (a) focus their collaboration on the design of an Air Force or Joint Service (including the Air Force) weapon system or subsystem in the acquisition or support stage with an appropriate program point of contact, (b) address technical, business process, information infrastructure, or relationship problems or issues that erect serious barriers to collaborative design throughout a supply chain, (c) address problems that are generic and applicable to other defense companies and systems, and (d) have established the scope of the program such that a solution is demonstrated with the combined funds available (Government and offeror) and within the program duration. Proposals will also include the following elements: (a) evidence of commitment for the long term to increasing supplier collaboration in the design stage from an already-significant level, (b) demonstrated knowledge of recent benchmarks that are appropriate to the problem(s) being attacked, (c) recognition of the system nature and context of the supply chain, (d) a systematic approach to identify the technical, business process, information infrastructure, or relationship barrier(s) and/or issue(s); emphasizing the non-technical barriers and issues that hamper increased collaboration with suppliers beginning early in the design stage, (e) need for Air Force funding to underwrite the risks in attacking these barriers, (f) a logical, credible plan toattack barrier(s) and issue(s), validate the solution(s), implement the results, and document the benefits and processes suitably for Air Force and defense industry use as guidelines and reference materials, (g) a suitable cost share demonstrating a commitment to the plan, (h) an intent to openly share quantifiable lessons learned, (i) demonstrated knowledge of processes impacted by the problem(s), (j) evidence that solving the problem(s) is central to the goals and objectives of both customer and supplier, (k) demonstrated knowledge of pertinent supplier development and management measures and metrics, and (l) present a description of the company's supplier management philosophy, strategy, organization, and processes. (2) Deliverable Items: The following deliverable data items shall be proposed: (a) Status Report, DI-MGMT-80368/T, (monthly); (b) Scientific and Technical Reports, Final, DI-MISC-80711/T, (draft and camera ready copy, one time, upon completion of effort, to include business case); (c) Presentation Material DI-ADMN- 81373/T, (as required); (d) Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR), DI-MGMT-81468/T, (quarterly); (e) Scientific and Technical Reports (contractor's billing voucher), DI-MISC-80711/T, (monthly), (f) Funds and Man-Hour Expenditure Report, DI-FNCL-80331/T (monthly). (3) Security Requirements: It is not anticipated that work performed on this effort will require access to classified information. (4) Other Special Requirements: None. C-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (1) Anticipated Period of Performance: The government estimates that the technical effort will require approximately 12 months to complete. An additional 3 months will be required for processing/completing the final reporting. (2) Expected Award Date: August 1998 (3) Government Estimate: The government anticipates multiple awards. The government anticipates that a subsequent solicitation will be issued within 12 months, prior to potential FY99 awards. Anticipated incremental funding for this program is as follows; $300 K (FY98) ; $700 K (FY99); $ 500 K (FY00); $ 600 K (FY01). The government share per individual award will be approximately $500K. This funding profile is an estimate only and is not a promise for funding as all funding is subject to change due to Government discretion and availability. (4) Type of Award Instrument: Cost Share Contract, Cooperative Agreement or Other Transaction. Based upon section 256 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337), the use of a cost share contract, cooperative agreement or an other transaction (all containing cost sharing) is required. Cost shared contracts or cooperative agreements are anticipated. It is noted that FAR part 31 sets forth the principles for allowable cost share pertaining to contracts while OMB Circular A-110 defines allowable cost sharing for cooperative agreements. A copy of OMB Circular A-110 may be obtained upon request by calling 202-395-4660. (5) Government Furnished Property: None contemplated. (6) Size Status: Firms responding should indicate their size status as well as indicating whether they are or are not a socially and economically disadvantaged business or a woman owned business. For the purposes of this acquisition, the size standard is 500 employees Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 8731. (7) Notice to Foreign-Owned Firms: All foreign owned or foreign controlled firms are asked to immediately notify the Contracting Officer upon deciding to respond to this announcement. Foreign and foreign controlled contractors should be aware that restrictions may apply which could preclude their participation in this acquisition. D-PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: (1) General: Offerors should apply the restrictive notice prescribed in the provision of FAR 52.215-1(e), "Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data," to trade secrets or privileged commercial and financial information contained in their proposals. Proposal questions should be directed to one of the points of contact listed elsewhere herein. Offerors should consider instructions contained in the PRDA and BAA Guide for Industry referenced in Section A of this announcement. Technical and cost proposals shall be submitted in separate volumes and must be valid for 180 days. Proposals shall reference the above BAA number. In an effort to move toward paperless contracting, you are encouraged to submit your cost and technical proposals via electronic means on a 3 inch DOS formatted computer disk or CD-ROM in either Microsoft Word version 7.0 or Rich Text format. Please note that classified information shall NOT be submitted on disk. If proposals are not submitted on computer disk or CD-ROM, they shall be submitted in an original and five copies. If proposals are submitted by electronic means, submit 2 paper copies and 4 electronic copies. All responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered against the criteria set forth herein. Offerors are advised that only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to contractually bind or otherwise commit the government. (2) CostProposal: Adequate price competition is anticipated; therefore, offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. Offerors must submit cost or pricing information only to the extent necessary to permit the government the ability to determine the reasonableness and realism of the cost and/or price. The offeror's format for submitting such information is acceptable. Cost proposals should be organized to include three sections in the following order: total program cost, cost sharing and in-kind contributions, and cost to the government. Section 1 -- Total Program Cost -- will give a detailed breakdown of the total program costs, and also broken down by each individual task appearing in the SOW. This should include all of the proposed cost to the government. The total cost of each major cost element and the make-up of those costs should be presented in the offerors' proposals. The offeror is encouraged to divide the proposal into separate tasks that would allow the Government to easily procure individual tasks or combinations thereof. Sufficient information should be provided in supporting documents to allow the government to evaluate the reasonableness of these proposed costs, including salaries, overhead, material purchases, fair market rental value of any leased items and the method used for making such valuations. Profit/Fee are not applicable under cost share contracts, cooperative agreements or other transactions. Section 2 -- Cost Sharing and In-Kind Contributions proposed under a cooperative agreement or other transaction will include: (1) the sources of cash and amounts to be used for matching requirements; (2) the specific in-kind contributions proposed, their value in monetary terms, and the methodology used to derive their values; and (3) evidence of the existence of adequate cash or commitments to provide sufficient cash in the future. Signed commitments are required from outside sources of cash. Proposals should contain sufficient information regarding the sources of the offeror's cost share so that a determination regarding availability, timeliness and control of the resources may be made by the government. (3) Technical Proposal: The technical proposal shall include a discussion of the nature and scope of the problems(s) or barrier(s) being attacked, a discussion of the proposed approach to solving the problem, and sufficient information to present a strong business case for solving the problem that are applicable to both the company and its suppliers. Additional information on prior work in this area, descriptions of available equipment, data and facilities, and resumes of personnel who will be participating in this effort should also be included as attachments to the technical proposal and will be counted in the page count for the technical proposal. The technical proposal shall include: (a) a Statement of Work (SOW) detailing the technical tasks proposed to be accomplished under the proposed effort and suitable for contract incorporation. Any questions concerning the technical proposal or SOW preparation shall be referred to the Technical Point of Contact cited in this announcement. Offerors should also refer to the PRDA/BAA Guide referenced in Section A to assist in SOW preparation; (b) a statement of intention, if any, to use foreign nationals; (c) a monthly break out of person hours for each major task in the SOW; and, (d) the names and qualifications of subcontractors, and level of effort to be subcontracted. Offerors are notified that the SOW, or any part thereof, may be incorporated, by reference, in any resulting award. The paragraph numbering used in the Technical Proposal for the technical approach discussion, the SOW tasks, and the Cost Proposal shall correlate. Travel is projected to include, but not be limited to: Contract Kick-off Meeting, Quarterly Reviews, and End of Contract Reviews at locations selected by the Government. (4) Page Limitations: Technical proposals shall not exceed 40 pages, double spaced, single-sided on 8.5" x 11" paper using 12 pitch or larger type with 1.25" minimum margins. If electronic means are used to submit the proposal, it shall be readable by Microsoft Word for Windows. The double spacing requirement shall be satisfied by Microsoft Word's double spacing method and the 12 pitch or larger requirements shall be satisfied by setting Microsoft Word for Windows type size (point) at 10 or smaller. The page limitation includes all information, i.e., indexes, photographs, foldouts, and appendices. Pages in excess of this limitation will not be considered by the Government. Cost proposals have no limitations, however, offerors are requested to keep cost proposals to 50 pages as a goal. If electronic means are used to submit the cost proposal, it shall be readable by Microsoft Excel 97 for Windows (5) Preparation Cost: This announcement is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay for any proposal preparation cost. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this BAA is not an allowable direct charge to any resultingcontract or any other contract. It may be, however, an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR 31.205-18. If selected for negotiations, qualifying offerors will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan. E-BASIS FOR AWARD: The selection of one or more proposals will be based on a complete evaluation of offerors' response (both technical and cost) to determine the overall merit of the proposal in response to this announcement. The technical aspect, which is ranked first in order of priority, shall be evaluated based upon the following criteria which are of equal importance: (a) understanding of the problem, (b) soundness of approach, and (c) special technical factors. Cost and/or price is a substantial factor, but ranked in second order of priority to the technical criteria. Key aspects of this criteria include consideration of proposed budgets and funding profiles, cost share extent, appropriateness and linkage to program results, and cost realism and justification. The technical and cost information will be evaluated concurrently. The Government reserves the right to select for award of a contract, or other assistance instrument, any, all, part or none of the proposals received. F-POINTS OF CONTACT: (1) Technical Point of Contact: Mr. Wallace C. Patterson, Engineer, AFRL/MLMS, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7739, telephone (937) 255-4623, FAX (937) 255-6421, e-mail: patterwc@ml.wpafb.af.mil. Contracting/Cost Point of Contact: Ms. Chris Lay, Contract Negotiator, AFRL/MLKT, Wright-Pat (0092)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0007 19980406\A-0007.SOL)