A -- AIRCRAFT DIRECTED ENERGY LASER APPLICATIONS (ADELA)

Notice Date

September 19, 2000

Contracting Office

Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFRL -- PL "Directed Energy Directorate", 2251 Maxwell Ave, Kirtland AFB, NM, 87117

ZIP Code

87117

Solicitation Number

Reference-Number-DE00-03

Response Due

October 19, 2000

Point of Contact

Sandra Maes, Contract Specialist, Phone 505 846 4635, Fax 505 853 3398, Email Sandra.Maes@kirtland.af.mil -- Steve Young, Contracting Officer, Phone 505 846 4624, Fax 505 853 3398, Email Steven.Young@kirtland.af.mil

E-Mail Address

Sandra Maes (Sandra.Maes@kirtland.af.mil)

Description

A-INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS: 1. This notice serves as the Program Research and Development (PRDA) and request for White Papers for the Aircraft Directed Energy Laser Applications (ADELA) research effort. AFRL will not issue a separate solicitation. AFRL is distributing this PRDA electronically through the FedBizOpps at http://eps.gov. To reach the actual site where this PRDA is posted, offerors enter "DE00-03" into the search option. 2. This PRDA has one submission date. Offerors shall submit their white papers to Sandra M. Maes at the following address (if mailed): Det 8 AFRL/PKDP (Directorate of Contracting), 2251 Maxwell Ave SE, Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5773; or (if hand-carried) Building 499, Room 208, Kirtland AFB NM. Offerors shall submit their white papers so that they arrive no later than 2:30 P.M. Kirtland AFB local time on 19 Oct 00. 3. Offerors must mark their proposals with the restrictive language stated in FAR 15.609(a). 4. This is an unrestricted solicitation under SIC code 8731 (size standard is 500 employees). No portion of this PRDA has been set-aside for historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions (HBCU/MI). 5. Offerors may obtain a copy of the AFRL Guide entitled "BAA/PRDA GUIDE", dated 29 Jun 98, from the Internet. This guide will help offerors understand the PRDA process. To see the guide, go to http://extra.afrl.af.mil/policy-guides.htm. From there, click on "BAA Guide". 6. Points Of Contact (POCs): Contractual/Business issues: Sandra M. Maes, Det 8 AFRL/PKDP (Directorate of Contracting), 2251 Maxwell Ave SE, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5773. Phone 505-846-4635, fax 505-853-3398, and e-mail Sandra.Maes@kirtland.af.mil. The contracting officer is Steve Young, phone 505-846-4624, fax 505-853-3398, and e-mail Steven.Young@kirtland.af.mil. Technical issues: Dr. William Page, program manager, AFRL/DELS, 3550 Aberdeen Ave SE, Bldg 413, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776. Phone 505-846-0879, fax 505-846-9900, and e-mail William.Page@kirtland.af.mil. B-CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS: 1. Some of the work may be performed at AFRL/DELS's facilities. There is one room with two computers that may be shared with a contractor depending upon the nature of the task order. 2. The following deliverable types of data may be required, depending on the individual task order: (a) Status Report, Data Item Description (DID) number is DI-MGMT-80368, (b) Technical Report-Study/Services, DID number is DI-MISC-80508, (c) Computer Software Product End Items, DID number is DI-MCCR-80700, (d) Scientific and Technical Reports, DID number is DI-MISC-80711. 3. A Secret facility clearance will be required and contractor personnel will require a current Secret clearance. Foreign owned firms are advised there may be restrictions to becoming the prime contractor. Please contact Linda Stillman at 505-846-6724 or Sandra M. Maes at 505-846-4635 if you plan to submit a proposal. 4. AFRL intends to award incrementally funded, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract(s) with cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders. AFRL reserves the right to make no award, a single award, or multiple awards. This includes the possibility of making more than one award within a given topic area. If multiple awards within a topic area do occur, contractors may have to compete with each other for a given task order. If competed, AFRL will evaluate task order proposals on the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance: technical, affordability, and previous performance on the contract. AFRL then will evaluate for realism and reasonableness the cost proposal of the contractor selected for negotiation. 5. For planning purposes, the anticipated award date is 19 Jan 01. The total duration of contract(s) is expected to be 69 months. The ordering period is expected to be 60 months. Depending on when the last order is placed, technical effort may extend up to 66 months with an additional 3 months for final reporting, for a total of 69 months. 6. At no time will total dollars obligated on all contracts awarded under this PRDA exceed $23 million. The government funding profile for the ADELA program is estimated to be $3M in FY01, $5M in FY02, $7M in FY03, $5M in FY04, and $3M in FY05 for a total funding estimate of $23M. AT THIS TIME, ALL FUNDING IS ANTICIPATED CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING. PLEASE REALIZE THIS FUNDING PROFILE IS AN ESTIMATE ONLY, IS NOT A PROMISE FOR FUNDING, AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO GOVERNMENT DISCRETION AND AVAILABILITY. 7. In order to avoid, neutralize, and mitigate any organizational conflicts of interest, and based on the general rules in FAR 9.505, Alternates III, IV, and VI of AFMCFARS 5352.209-9002 will be included in any contract(s) resulting from the ADELA PRDA. C-EVALUATION & AWARD PROCESS: 1. First, AFRL will evaluate all white papers by a peer or scientific review process. The AFRL evaluators may contact an offeror in order to gain additional information or clarification before completing the evaluation. Such dialogue will most likely be conducted by telephone, but may be done in writing or face to face as required. After AFRL identifies white paper(s) that merit further consideration, it will send those firm(s) a model contract, along with a request for a contractor prepared Statement of Work (CSOW), and cost and technical proposals for contemplated task orders. The CSOW shall include, by reference, the requirements guidelines, modified to incorporate any changes the offeror deems appropriate. The technical proposal also shall describe the offeror's technical and management approaches, identify technical uncertainties, and make specific proposals for the resolution of any uncertainties. Lastly, offerors shall include in the technical proposal any planned subcontracting of scientific or technical work. Offerors not invited to submit CSOWs and cost/technical proposals are discouraged from doing so. Nor will CSOWs and cost/technical proposals be solicited from firms that did not initially submit white papers. 2. After AFRL evaluates the technical proposal(s) and performs an affordability review of the cost proposal(s), it will categorize proposals as follows: (i) Category I: Well conceived, scientifically and technically sound proposals pertinent to program goals and objectives, and offered by a responsible contractor with the competent scientific and technical staff and supporting resources needed to ensure satisfactory program results. Proposals in Category I are recommended for acceptance and normally are displaced only by other Category I proposals; (ii) Category II: Scientifically or technically sound proposals requiring further development and are recommended for acceptance, but are at lower priority than Category I; (iii) Category III: Proposals that are not technically sound or do not meet agency needs. 3. Following proposal categorization, AFRL will enter into negotiations with selected Category I offerors. Cost realism will be assessed for those offers selected for negotiation and price reasonableness will be determined prior to making any award. If AFRL enters into negotiations with an offeror, but is unable to reach agreement, that proposal may be displaced by a lower rated proposal. AFRL may at that time enter into negotiations with an offeror not originally contacted for negotiations. AFRL reserves the right to select for award any part, or all of an offeror's proposal. 4. Any unsuccessful offeror may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.506. 5. A copy of a task order's final report under any resultant contract(s) will be available, subject to national disclosure policy and regulations. D-EVALUATION CRITERIA: 1. The evaluation criterion for white papers is technical which includes: originality and innovativeness of the technical approach, prior demonstrated experience in the IRCM field, facilities that can support the proposed testing, demonstrated experience in integration of experimental results and modeling, soundness of technical approach, probability of success, reasonableness of approach in light of the current technology, and qualifications of proposed personnel. 2. The evaluation criteria, in descending order of importance, for CSOWs, technical and cost proposals are a) technical, which includes: originality and innovativeness of the technical approach, prior demonstrated experience in the IRCM field, facilities that can support the proposed testing, demonstrated experience in integration of experimental results and modeling, soundness of technical approach, probability of success, reasonableness of approach in light of the current technology and qualifications of proposed personnel; and b) affordability. 3. In accordance with FAR 19.1307, a ten percent price evaluation preference will be used if offers are received from HUBZone small business concerns. E-OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD: 1. In order to receive a DoD contract, offerors must be registered in the DoD Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system and the U.S./Canada Joint Certification Program. For more information and on-line registration with CCR, see http://www.ccr.dlis.dla.mil. Information on the U.S./Canada Joint Certification Program can be obtained by visiting http://www.dlis.dla.mil/ccal/. 2. If selected for negotiation, large business offerors shall submit an acceptable small business subcontracting plan. 3. In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(1), before an offeror can receive a cost-reimbursement contract, the offeror must possess an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. 4. If selected to submit a CSOW, technical and cost proposal, the offeror shall execute a representations and certifications. F-WHITE PAPER PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: 1. The white paper shall include a discussion of the nature and scope of the research to be performed. White papers shall address the following sections: (i) Program Description, (ii) Facilities and Equipment Description, and (iii) Description of Relevant Prior Work. Under Section (i) Program Description, describe the ideas in technical detail, how these ideas are innovative, and how these will be beneficial to the Air Force in terms of new and innovative technologies. Furthermore, describe in detail the planned approach and how the plan will be executed. This section should include all technical aspects and how the approach will be executed to result in a solution of the task areas. Under Section (ii) Facilities and Equipment Description, include a description of the facilities that can be used in terms of security classification levels, computations systems, testing facilities, and any specialized equipment. Under Section (iii) Description of Relevant Prior Work, include a list of both in-house efforts funded by internal research funds and contracts funded by others. Also, include a list of the principal investigator, title of effort, contract number, brief summary of results, and a point-of-contact with the funding organization. 2. The offeror shall include as attachments to the white paper the resumes of the principal investigator and other key personnel proposed to perform this effort. The offeror may include as attachments any charts, graphs, matrices, pictures, or similar items. 3. The white paper shall be no more than ten pages for each of the three SOO topic areas (e.g., if you propose on two topic areas, the white paper shall not exceed twenty pages), excluding attachments, title page (if any), table of contents (if any), and cover sheet (if any). Any excess pages will not be evaluated and will be returned to the offeror. The offeror may address one, some, or all of the topic areas. 4. The offeror shall provide one 3 12" magnetic disk (IBM formatted) containing an electronic copy of the white paper, including any attachments, title page (if any), table of contents (if any), and cover sheet (if any), in either Microsoft Word (version Office 97 or lower) or Adobe Acrobat file format. Additionally, the offeror shall provide two printed hard copies on 8 12" X 11" pages with a legible font size. Illegible white papers will not be evaluated. 5. Cost proposals are neither required nor desired when submitting white papers. G-MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION: 1. This PRDA does not commit the government to pay for any proposal preparation costs. The cost of preparing white papers and proposals in response to this PRDA is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract. However, it may be an allowable expense under the normal bid and proposal indirect cost, as specified in FAR 31.305-18. 2. An Ombudsman has been appointed to mediate concerns from offerors or potential offerors during the pre-proposal phase of competitive, negotiated acquisitions. The Ombudsman does not participate in proposal evaluation or contractor selection. The Ombudsman can work with responsible acquisition officials to respond to concerns, but will not detract from the authorities of the Project Manager or Contracting Officer. When requested, the Ombudsman will maintain the confidentiality of sources. The Ombudsman at Phillips Research Site is Lt Col Robert Gillette, Deputy Director of Contracting, Det 8 AFRL/PK, 2251 Maxwell Ave SE, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5773; (505) 846-4979. Before contacting the Ombudsman, potential offerors should first refer contracting concerns to the Contracting Officer, Steve Young at 505-846-4624 or refer technical concerns to the Project Manager, Dr. William Page, at 505-846-0879. 3. See Commerce Business Daily Numbered Note 26. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES Aircraft Directed Energy Laser Applications (ADELA) Program Research and Development Announcement (PRDA) Overview The Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Directorate (AFRL/DE) has been developing advanced technology for Laser Spark related Infrared Countermeasures (IRCM) effects and countermeasures systems. Additionally, AFRL has developed related technology for damage and degrade (D2) effects on focal plane array (FPA) sensors and is currently investigating the feasibility of medium and high power laser weapons systems for aircraft self protection. In addition to these primary IRCM activities, AFRL seeks to explore and develop advanced laser and effects technologies including ultra fast lasers, to develop innovative low cost beam control and laser source solutions necessary for the development of advanced laser aircraft self protection and high energy laser (HEL) weapon systems. The AFRL/DE is interested in novel concepts and ideas that will further the technology for Laser Spark and D2 in the IRCM effort. In particular, AFRL/DE is interested in pursuing concepts in the following three areas. 1. Laser effects testing, analysis and threat negation performance modeling. The development of engineering models relating observable external target characteristics, laser characteristics, and the characteristics of the damage and energy coupled into the target sensors, internal circuits, and other systems are of interest. Information about these characteristics will be made available from various data sources. The design of experiments that characterize the Laser Spark, D2, and other high-energy laser effects on imaging and IR seeking missile systems and incorporating the data into the models are of interest. The improvement of existing models by taking into account the Laser Spark and D2 effects are of interest. Models currently in use by the Tactical Lasers Branch (AFRL/DELS), include TRAP, DISAMS, and ISAMS. These improved models could further advance comprehensive studies of effectiveness for various system designs and mission scenario options. Studies for the utilization of aircraft lasers to assess battlefield conditions and defeat threat systems. Studies and models for requirements for laser source parameters and beam propagation performance. 2. Aircraft laser source and beam control system design, development and testing. Assessment of the relative merits of approaches to aircraft mounted IRCM requires the understanding of constraints imposed by existing and near term laser beam control technology. Pursuit of technology regarding a vibration mitigating optical control system for the lasing optical cavity and for the optical beam transport on the aircraft. Conceptual designs and experiments to define an aircraft mounted laser and beam control system compatible with laser performance requirements defined from Task Area One are of interest. Additionally demonstrations that a laser can be designed, fabricated and fielded for a technology that will generate the required laser source format as defined from Task Area One are of interest. The goal is that the field laser subsystem shows a clear technology path to a full system implementation. AFRL/DE is interested in demonstrating that a reliable target tracking and laser pointing system can be deployed for a field test demonstration showing a feasible upgrade path for military utilization in an aircraft mounted configuration. Low cost, high reliability, leveraging off current designs, and effective integration are prime factors in the design of these subsystems. 3. System level design, integration and performance trade studies and Technology Demonstration tests. AFRL/DELS is interested in the development of system level design trade studies for the application of this technology to aircraft mounted systems. Factors of interest in these trade studies include cost, reliability, aircraft integration (size, weight, power, etc.), and mission effectiveness. As part of the conceptual design, the most suitable facilities for fabrication of the design elements considering cost, time required, and risk of non-performance are also important. Facilities to be considered include those controlled by the contractor(s), sub-contractor(s), and government. The purchase of the elements from a qualified vendor is another consideration. Additionally, identification of those portions of the design contributing significantly to the developmental risk, and appropriate feasibility demonstrations and validation efforts for the most cost-effective risk mitigation are desired.

Web Link

Visit this URL for the latest information about this (http://www2.eps.gov/cgi-bin/WebObjects/EPS?ACode=M&ProjID=Reference-Number-DE00-03&LocID=1122)

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20000921/ASOL003.HTM (D-263 SN498240)