Defense Supply Service-Washington, 5200 Army Pentagon, Rm. 1D245, Washington, DC 20310-5200

A -- R&D BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT DUE 031999 POC Carole Mattice, Contract Specialist (703) 697-6259 and/or Joyce Rose, Supervisory Contract Specialist, (703) 695-2564 BAA SUBJECT: NGP Research Element 3.C-b Instrumentation for Fuel and Oxygen Concentration Measurements During Suppression of Flames in Real-scale Fire Test Facilities BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT -- The Executive Director, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), is soliciting proposals under NGP Research Element 3.C-b Instrumentation for Fuel and Oxygen Concentration Measurements During Suppression of Flames in Real-scale Fire Test Facilities. [NOTE: In addition to this BAA, proposals will be also be solicited within the Government by the SERDP Executive Director.] BACKGROUND: Halon 1301, used for fire extinguishment and explosion suppression applications in fielded weapon systems and mission-critical facilities, has been banned from national production due to its high ozone-depleting potential. Alternatives developed by industry to date have sizable weight and volume penalties, and their application to fielded current weapons systems could require expending large amounts of funding and time. Consequently, the DoD has embarked on an aggressive new R&D program -- the Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program (NGP) -- under the technical direction and oversight of the Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering/Platform and Materials Technology (ODDR&E/PMT). The NGP goal is to develop and demonstrate, by 2005, retrofitable, economically feasible, environmentally-friendly and user-safe processes, techniques, and fluids that meet the operational requirements currently satisfied by halon 1301 systems in aircraft, ships, land combat vehicles, and critical mission support facilities. The results will be specifically applicable to fielded weapons systems, and will provide dual-use fire suppression technologies for preserving both life and operational assets. Successful candidates must perform satisfactorily in tests for a wide variety of properties, including those reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An initial survey of fires forwhich the DoD currently uses halon 1301 shows an extremely broad range of fire conditions and several distinct hazards to be avoided. The Military Departments and other participating government agencies will conduct research projects within the NGP, and proposals accepted from industry or academia for NGP research projects will be incorporated into these programs. Additional information on the NGP, including preliminary information about the types of fires to be suppressed, may be found on the Internet Web site http://www.dtic.mil/ddre/, under "Science and Technology Programs," at document "The Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology: Strategy for a National Program," dated July 1996. The NGP Technical Point of Contact is Dr. Richard G. Gann, Technical Program Manager (TPM), NGP, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), e-mail (preferred): rggann@nist.gov, phone: (301) 975-6866; fax: (301) 975-4052. A. BAA OBJECTIVE: To develop, install and demonstrate a multi-point measurement method for fuel vapor (heptane) and oxygen concentration during fire suppression tests in the engine nacelle simulator at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, and in the large-scale shipboard compartment facility at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Chesapeake Beach Division. The time interval for suppression is between 1 and 10 seconds. B. EXPECTED PAYOFF: The enhanced instrumentation of these facilities will enable (a) understanding of the extinguishment process during exploratory tests under realistic conditions and (b) determination of the cause of extinguishment during the evaluation of new fire suppression processes, techniques and fluids. C. BACKGROUND: During experiments in real-scale test fixtures, a variety of processes may contribute to the extinguishment of flames (direct action of the suppressant, flame blow-off, oxygen deprivation, etc.). The flames may also be stabilized behind obstructions. Certain measurements are needed to enable distinguishing the relative importance of these effects, whether seeking to verify whether the new fire suppression technology is operating as in bench-scale apparatus or whether demonstrating the value of the technology. The proposer, in selecting an instrumentation approach, should describe the accuracy and time/space resolution of the method and put these capabilities in the context of the quality of data needed to enable this understanding of the extinguishment process. D. ESTIMATED COST AND DURATION OF PROPOSED WORK: The government estimate of the cost and time to meet the requirements of this SON is $500,000 over two years. Proposers should not consider these estimates to be either minima or maxima; they are provided only as estimates around which reasonable proposals may be developed. It also should be understood that the government reserves the right to fund more than one proposal either to meet this requirement fully or to pursue more than one innovative approach; the reasonable total cost of which might be more or less than the government estimate. The government will consider proposals which offer technical or cost advantages but only meet partial technical requirements of this Research Element. Estimated additional funding (cost sharing) from performing organizations: colleges/ universities and small business firms -- 10% of total request; all others -- 33% of total request. SUBMISSIONS: Offerers are encouraged to submit concise, but descriptive, proposals. Proposals for FY 2000 contract awards will be accepted until 3:00 PM EST on 19 March 1999. The proposal, including the original signed copy, six additional copies, and one copy on a 3 " diskette (DOS-formatted, with text in a convertible word processor), all referencing BAA 3C-b and must be submitted to: Brenda J. Batch, Administrative Officer, SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, Virginia 22203, TEL: (703) 696-2123; FAX: (703) 696-2114. All technical questions concerning this BAA should be addressed to Dr. Richard G. Gann. PROPOSALS SENT BY FAX OR E-MAIL WILL BE REJECTED. Proposals will be selected through a technical/scientific/business decision process with technical and scientific considerations being most important. Individual proposal evaluations will be based on acceptability or non-acceptability without regard to other proposals submitted under the announcement; however, due to budgetary constraints, all acceptable proposals may not be funded. No award will be made without a proposal to perform the specific effort within an estimated cost and time framework. Offerers, if selected, must be willing to cooperate and exchange information in an integrated program with other contractors chosen by the TPM. PROPOSAL CONTENT: Proposals shall consist of two separate parts. Part I shall provide the technical proposal and management approach, and Part II shall address costs. The proposals shall be prepared on 8.5 x 11 inch paper, with one and one-half line spacing or double spaced, in at least 10-point type. Part I of the proposal should, as a minimum, describe the proposed concept thoroughly. This should include naming the proposed chemical(s) or technology, indicating why there is reason to believe it will be effective, and showing the types of fires for which its use is suggested. In addition, the document should describe the experiments proposed to obtain the proof of concept and the criteria for success, and the performance schedule. In particular, Part I of the proposal shall include: (a) a cover page including BAA number, proposal title, technical and administrative points of contact including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, electronic mail addresses, and facsimile machine numbers; (b) a one-page summary identifying any technical ideas to be pursued and their expected impact on the state of the art and the NGP; (c) a statement of work, detailing the scope of the proposed work and specific utilization of subcontractors; (d) a description of results, products, and transferable technology expected from the project; (e) a list of the milestones and schedule; (f) a statement of the technical rationale that substantiates the schedule and justifies the overall technical approach of the proposal; (g) a (not-to-exceed) one-page summary of any proprietary claims to results, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype (if there are no proprietary claims this section shall consist of a statement to that effect); (h) a section describing relevant capabilities, accomplishments, and work in these or closely related areas along with the qualifications of proposed subcontractors; (i) a management plan describing the overall approach to management of this effort, including brief discussions of total organizations, use of personnel, project/function/subcontractor relationships, government research and facility interface, and planning, scheduling and control practices. Part I must be no longer than 10 pages in length, including up to one appendix for figures. Foldouts shall be counted as a single page. The contents of the appendix shall be limited to figures that directly support items discussed in the text of the proposal. If items are included in the appendix which are not covered in the basic proposal, the proposal may not be reviewed. Proposals with Part I in excess of 10 pages may not be reviewed. Proposals of fewer than the maximum number of pages will not be penalized. Part II of the proposal shall be no longer than 10 pages and shall include a one page summary. Costs shall be supported by detailed breakdowns of labor hours by labor category and tasks/subtasks, materials, travel, computer and other direct and indirect costs. An explanation of any estimating factors, including their derivation and application, shall be provided. Details of any cost sharing to be undertaken by the Offerer should also be included in the cost section. [See APPENDIX A of this BAA for additional requirements and amplifying information concerning preparation of Part II cost data.] ABSTRACT: Offerers, either individual or teamed, are strongly encouraged to submit a two-page abstract of their proposed work to preclude unwarranted effort (a) on the part of an Offerer in preparing a full proposal and (b) on the part of the Government, in reviewing one. Page one shall be a title page clearly labeled "PROPOSAL ABSTRACT" and including this BAA number, proposal title, plus Offerer's administrative and technical points of contact along with mailing addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail addresses, and the signature of an authorized officer. The second page should include a summary of the technical ideas proposed and their anticipated deliverables, and total cost. The abstract shall be on 8.5 x 11 inch paper, with one and one-half line spacing or double spaced, in at least 10-point type. The original and one copy of each abstract shall be received no later than 3:00 p.m. January 19, 1999, by the SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, Virginia 22203, TEL: 703-696-2117; FAX: 703-696-2114. A copy of the abstract should also be sent -- preferably by e-mail -- to the Technical Point of Contact, Dr. Richard G. Gann, by the same date. An abstract is not a requirement for submission or selection of a proposal. Any Offerer whose abstract is found to be consistent with the intent of this BAA will be invited by February 12, 1999, to submit a full technical and cost proposal. Such an invitation does not assure subsequent contract award. Regardless of the recommendation, the decision to submit or not submit a proposal is the responsibility of the Offerer. EVALUATION/AWARD PROCESS: Evaluation of the abstracts and proposals will be performed using the following criteria, listed in descending order of relative importance: (1) technical quality and originality of the proposed research; (2) relevance to the NGP goal and impact on the goal if successful; (3) the Offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations thereof, which are integral factors for achieving the proposed objectives; and (4) the appropriateness of the budget to accomplishing the work proposed under this BAA. Proposals will be evaluated and ranked by a Peer Review Panel chaired by the NGP TPM. Dr. Richard G. Gann, the NGP Technical Program Manager (TPM) and Chairman of the NGP Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), will Chair the Peer Review Panel selected by the TPM. The Panel will be composed of three or more evaluators. Each proposal will be evaluated and ranked by at least three Panel members. The NGP TPM/TCC will review the Panel results and consider acceptable proposals that best meet the programmatic needs of the NGP, as advertised in the BAA. The NGP TPM/TCC will recommend to the SERDP Executive Director, through the Halon Alternatives R&D Steering Group (HASG) and the SERDP Pollution Prevention Thrust Area Working Group (PP/TTAWG), a subset of the acceptable proposals for award which will construct a balanced program, meeting the needs of the NGP. These recommended proposals will then be reviewed by the SERDP Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). The mission of the SAB is to review all proposed SERDP-funded projects and, based on the projects' technical merit and funding, make appropriate selection recommendations to the SERDP Council. The TPM will make a concise presentation of the proposals to the SAB, usually in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Principal investigators of the recommended projects may attend, as coordinated with the TPM, who will provide specific guidance for this presentation, including date, time, and location. Contract award selections will be recommended by the SERDP Executive Director to the SERDP Council, which will approve the FY 2000 SERDP new-start projects prior to 1 October 1999. The Defense Supply Service-Washington (DSS-W) Contracts Office, the contracting agency for the NGP, will make contract awards within a reasonable period of time. A Military Department or NIST official will be designated a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for each contract, as recommended by the NGP TPM. It is the policy of the SERDP Program Office and the DSS-W Contracts Office to treat all proposals as competitive and proprietary information and to disclose the contents only for the purpose of evaluation. The Government may use selected support contractor personnel as special resources to assist in administering the evaluation of the proposals. These persons are restricted by their contracts from disclosing the proposal information or using it for other than performing their assigned administrative task. Contractor personnel are required to sign non-disclosure statements. By submission of your proposal, you agree that your proposal information may be disclosed to these selected contractors for the limited purpose stated above. Any information submitted with your proposal that you do not consent to limited release to these contractors must be clearly marked and submitted segregated from other proposal material. This announcement constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement as contemplated in FAR 6.102(d)(2). There will be no formal request for proposals or other solicitations outside the Government regarding this announcement. The Government reserves the right to select for award all, some, or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement. All responsible sources may submit a proposal which shall be considered. Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) 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 NGP technology for exclusive competition among these entities. Points of contact at the Defense Supply Service Washington: Carole Mattice, Contract Specialist (703) 697-6259 and/or Joyce Rose, Supervisory Contract Specialist, (703) 695-2564. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND AMPLIFYING INFORMATION CONCERNING PREPARATION OF PART II COST DATA: Cost Estimate: An estimate of the total research project cost, with a break down of direct and indirect funds by category and year, must accompany each formal proposal (PART II). Multiple-year proposals are encouraged to cover the total estimated duration of the project, as appropriate. Incremental funds will be provided by SERDP to successful proposers for effort performed during each Federal fiscal year, given that sufficient funds are provided to SERDP and the defense requirements indicate that the research is a continuing priority. Costs proposed must conform with the following regulations and principles: Commercial firms: Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 31 and Defense FAR Supplement Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures. Educational Institutions: OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, OMB Circular A-88, Indirect Cost Rates, Audit an Audit Follow-up at Educational Institutions. Nonprofit Organizations: OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations, OMB Circular A-133, Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this BAA is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resultant contract, grant or cooperative agreement. It is, however, an allowable expense to the bid and proposal indirect cost specified in FAR 31.205-18, and OMB Circulars A-21 and A-122. The budget estimate must include the following: a. Direct Labor Costs: Show the current and projected salary amounts in terms of man-hours, man-months or annual salary to be charged by the PI(s), research associates and assistants, and the total amount per year to be paid to each from the project. State the number of man-hours used to calculate a man-month or man-year. For proposals from universities, the time and amounts to be charged should be identified by academic year and summer effort. The proposal must identify the following: 1) The basis for the direct labor hours or percentage of effort, e.g., historical hours or estimates. 2) The basis for thedirect labor rates or salaries. Labor costs should be predicated upon actual labor rates or salaries. These estimates may be adjusted upward for forecast salary or wage cost-of-living increases that will occur during the contract period. Such COLAs should not exceed 4%, exclusive of merit increases. The proposal should separately identify the ratio applied to base salary/wage for cost-of-living adjustments and merit increases. Each must be fully explained. b. Fringe Benefits and Indirect Cost Rates (overhead, general and administrative and other): The most recent rates, dates of negotiation, the base(s) and periods to which the rates apply must be disclosed and a statement included to identify whether the proposed rates are provisional or fixed. A copy of the negotiation memorandum should be provided. If negotiated forecast rates do not exist, sufficient detail must be provided to enable a determination that the costs included in the forecast rate are allocable according to applicable FAR/DFARS or OMB Circular provisions (see above). Disclosure should be sufficient to permit a full understanding of the content of the rate(s) and how it was established. As a minimum, submission should identify: 1) all individual cost elements included in the forecast rate(s); 2) the basis used to prorate indirect expenses to cost pools, if any; 3) how the rate(s) was calculated; and 4) the distribution basis of the developed rate(s). c.Majo Posted 12/23/98 (W-SN283125). (0357)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0006 19981228\A-0006.SOL)