SOLICITATION NOTICE
16 -- Two-Step Broad Agency Announcement for Aircrew Survivability Technologies (AST)
- Notice Date
- 5/20/2011
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AMCOM-CC), ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577
- ZIP Code
- 23604-5577
- Solicitation Number
- W911W6-11-R-0012
- Response Due
- 7/6/2011
- Archive Date
- 9/4/2011
- Point of Contact
- Elizabeth A. Jackson, (757) 878-2100
- E-Mail Address
-
Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AMCOM-CC)
(elizabeth.a.jackson@us.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD), using a two-step Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process, is soliciting abstracts to conduct concept exploration R&D in support of the Army's Science and Technology (S&T) program entitled Aircrew Survivability Technologies (AST). This AST program is a 6.2 Applied Research effort encompassing four years (FY12-15) with the intent of making at least one award in each of the four topic areas. The AST program will develop technologies in the areas of conventional threat protection, crashworthiness, advanced fuel containment systems, and directed energy weapons (DEW) threat protection, with the intent of substantially improving aircrew survivability over current capabilities. The first step in the two-step process consists of receipt and review of abstracts summarizing the project that is to be the subject of a proposal. The purpose of abstract review is to foster competition, provide feedback to prospective Offerors relative to the likelihood of being funded so that better decisions can be made regarding incurring cost for proposal submission. Abstract feedback will be provided to facilitate an Offeror's decision on whether to prepare a full proposal. AATD response to an abstract is advisory only. The abstract should provide enough information to permit review against the evaluation criteria. Feedback will consist of a qualitative assessment and recommendation relative to full proposal submission. The second step in the two-step process consists of receipt and evaluation of proposals from which award decisions will be made. Offerors who do not submit an abstract are permitted to submit a full proposal. Every proposal will be subjected to the same comprehensive evaluation. Submission of a full proposal is necessary in order to receive an award under this announcement. There will be two abstract and proposal evaluation cycles as further discussed under General Information. The two-step approach benefits Offerors by allowing them to disband proposal teams (if desired) after the abstract phase. It benefits the Government by alleviating time wasted associated with evaluating proposals, which are not of sufficient technical interest/quality. SOLICITATION TOPIC DESCRIPTIONS: There are four topics under this announcement: TOPIC 01-2011: Conventional Threat Protection The U.S. Army has an ongoing interest in developing and maturing advanced technologies that increase aircraft and crew protection against conventional ballistic threats. Conventional ballistic threats are classified as small caliber threats, i.e. 7.62mm ball and armor piercing (AP), and 12.7mm AP, with 14.5mm AP as an objective for the future. Ballistic protection systems and materials have made significant advancements in recent years. For example, compared to systems constructed from aramid fabrics and high hard steels, high density polyethylene (HDPE) and HDPE/ceramic composite solutions have demonstrated superior ballistic performance, with mass efficiency ratios (MER) on the order of five against ball and AP threats, respectively. However, several fundamental issues still exist in armor and materials design that can lead to both weight and cost penalties. Fundamental to any armor's performance is its ability to absorb and/or dissipate ballistic impact energy. Against ball threats, materials constructed from HDPE combine high tensile strength fibers with high interlaminer shear strength to absorb the kinetic energy of the projectile. AP threat defeat mechanisms are more complicated, with energy dissipation capability a combination of the strike face properties and its interaction with a catcher material. Intrinsic to this ability are aspects of dwell and impedance matching of the laminate bond. Current state-of-the-art systems incorporate the latest generation of materials and architectures to address these interactions, but tend to impose weight and/or cost penalties, due both to the materials used and their parasitic application. These limitations negatively affect range and payload capability of the aircraft. Therefore, designs incorporating lighter weight materials such as toughened ceramics and intermetallics with surface enhancements that promote dwell and increase fracture toughness; advanced impedance matched materials and bonding agents that improve impact wave acoustic absorption; innovative fabrication processes that reduce the number of constituents and/or improve processability; and non-traditional system design approaches offer the promise of weight savings leading to improved aircraft performance in range, weight, or payload, while improving the level of ballistic protection, as compared to traditional armor approaches. The objective of this effort is to develop and demonstrate through test innovative light weight, high level of ballistic protection systems for rotorcraft application. Proposed solutions should provide protection from small caliber threats at a threshold minimum of 50% reduced areal density as compared to current armor systems. New materials, fabrication/processing techniques, and optimized system design technologies are expected to provide the greatest weight savings with potential for reducing production cost. The effectiveness of the armor design and supporting modeling and analysis tools used for the design shall be validated through ballistic test. TOPIC 02-2011: Crashworthiness Recent Study on Rotorcraft Survivability mandated by Congress in 2009 concluded that crash is one of the key contributors to rotorcraft occupant fatalities. The effectiveness of some of the current passive crash protection subsystems have decreased with growth in aircraft gross weights and varying crash impact conditions. In addition, while current crash protection subsystems were designed for crashworthiness considerations only without considerations for crew endurance, aviation OPTEMPO during OIF/OEF has increased flight durations from 2-4 hours to 6-12 hours requiring uninterrupted, prolonged sitting which results in fatigue and short- and long-term physiological injuries. Under the Advanced Aircrew Protection programs conducted in support of Aircrew Survivability Technologies (AST) Army Technology Objective (ATO) in FY08-11, an open system architecture for an active crash protection system (ACPS) concept was established and several active crash protection subsystems including external air bags with hybrid gas generators; restraint and head restraint system; landing gear system; energy attenuators for aircrew and troop seats; and integrated inflatable restraint system were developed. An integrated ACPS with feedback controls can predict impending crashes or hard landing conditions and activate/control specific crash protection subsystems to manage crash impact energy attenuation more effectively than current passive subsystems, thus significantly improving occupant survivability for current and future military rotorcraft. The intent of the FY12-15 Crashworthiness topic is to address subsystems constituents of crashworthiness for rotorcraft such as crashworthy aircrew and troop seats, landing gears systems, occupant restraint systems, crash sensing and activation systems, etc. Building on technologies developed under the Advanced Aircrew Protection programs conducted in support of the AST ATO program in FY08-11, the topic objective is to develop and demonstrate innovative and advanced crash protection technologies to provide optimum, full spectrum crash protection for rotorcraft occupants while improving crew endurance with minimum impact on aircraft weight, cost, power, and operational capability. The proposed crash protection subsystem/system shall provide a minimum 40% increase in impact energy attenuation over current subsystems/systems. TOPIC 03-2011: Advanced Fuel Containment Systems The US Army has ongoing interest in preventing fuel leakage from ballistic threat impacts. Continued emphasis on reduced system and subsystem weight has pushed the application of current material technologies to marginal levels of performance. Recent testing of current state-of-the-art fuel cells has demonstrated marginal levels of self-sealing performance for the required protection level. The need to reduce weight while maintaining ballistic and crashworthy performance remains. Further weight reduction, while maintaining desired protection levels, is not possible using fielded conventional fuel cell materials and designs. Current research efforts have shown that structural weight reductions on the order of 30%, obtained through the application of advanced design approaches and innovative materials can be obtained while maintaining performance levels per the latest revision of MIL-DTL-27422. Additional weight savings may be expected through use of lightweight high efficiency sealing materials. Moreover, DoD initiatives have emphasized the need for improved fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and alternative fuels, resulting in efforts to reformulate aviation fuels. Changes in fuel formulations have brought into question the basis upon which self-sealing technologies function. Consequently, current wound sealing techniques can no longer be the sole methodology in designing self-sealing systems. Future fuel formulations require new approaches to self-sealing fuel tanks designs. Chemical constituents of these new fuels need to be understood to facilitate development of new self-sealing protection schemes. The objective of this topic is to develop new self-sealing fuel containment technologies that meet or exceed the requirements of MIL-DTL-27422, independent of fuel composition. TOPIC 04-2011: Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) Threat Protection The U.S. Army has a strong interest in developing and maturing advanced technologies that increase aircraft and crew protection against directed energy weapons (DEW) threats. DEW threats include high energy lasers (HEL),and frequency agile low energy lasers (LEL). Protecting Army helicopter systems and occupants from the effects of battlefield lasers is a formidable technical challenge. Laser devices can damage aircraft transparencies or cause visual impairment either temporarily or permanently to the occupants. Incorporating HEL and frequency agile LEL protection into helicopter canopies and windows is especially difficult and has been the objective of several research and development efforts in the past. Many protection concepts and materials have been evaluated and in some cases, a significant level of laser protection has been achieved. However, there is no current single laser protection technology that meets all of the requirements for aircraft and crew protection, such as optical properties, tunability for varying wavelengths, weight, durability, cost, sustainability, manufacturability, and compatibility with night vision equipment. The objective of the DEW threat protection program is to develop and demonstrate innovative and advanced technologies to provide aircraft and occupant protection against HELand frequency agile LELs with minimal impact on the aircraft transparency optical properties, weight, durability, cost, sustainability, manufacturability, and compatibility with night vision equipment. The required protection levels are classified and will be provided as well as the Security Classification Guide for Laser Protection Materiel upon contract awards. ANTICIPATED FUNDING AND PERFORMANCE PERIOD: Anticipated funding for all awards under the AST program is as follows: $ 2.147M in FY12, $2.232M in FY13 for the first cycle, $1.935M in FY 14, and $1.664M in FY15 for the second cycle. It is the intent of the Government to make at least one award under each topic, subject to the availability of funds. The range of anticipated amount of awards for each topic is as follows: $0-$500K in FY12; $0-$550K in FY13 for the first cycle and $0-$480K in FY14; and $0-$410K in FY15 for the second cycle. It is desired that abstracts and proposals include a performance period of 15 to 20 months for the first cycle and 15- 24 months for the second cycle. Offerors should clearly depict their proposed schedule and ensure that the performance period for the first cycle will be completed by September 30, 2013 and for the second cycle by September 30, 2015. All four topics have the potential for single or multiple awards, which may address only part of the topic objectives. Any award made under this announcement is subject to the availability of funds. TYPE OF FUNDING INSTRUMENT: A variety of funding instruments are available depending upon the proposed effort, the entity submitting the successful proposal(s), and statutory and regulatory requirements the Government must satisfy. Such instruments include conventional contracts subject to the FAR, as supplemented, and Technology Investment Agreements (TIA) (Cooperative Agreement under 10 U.S.C 2358) or Other Transaction (OT) for Research (10 U.S.C. 2371), which are more flexible than traditional Government funding instruments. Under TIAs or OTs it is DoD policy to obtain, to the maximum extent practical, cost sharing of half of the cost of the project to ensure the recipient has a vested interest in the project's success. Cost participation may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions, where cash is considered of significantly higher quality in demonstrating commitment to the project. Cost participation will be considered in accordance with the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations, DoD 3210.6-R paragraph 34.13 (Cooperative Agreement) (but also see paragraph 37.530 pertaining to Other Transactions for Research) accessible at the following link: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/321006r.htm. Contract type is negotiable, but the Offeror's desire should be clearly stated in the cost proposal. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF ABSTRACTS: Guidance provided in this section applies to all abstracts submitted under this announcement. Offerors may submit abstracts that address different topics or propose different solutions under a single topic and each will be evaluated independently. Offerors may also submit abstracts that address only part of the problem under a topic. Abstracts should be marked with the solicitation and topic number and shall not exceed five (5) pages in length. The five page limitation includes drawings, charts, etc. The only exception to the five page count is the title page. Page size shall not exceed 8 1/2 x 11 and a minimum font size of twelve (12) is required, with a minimum of one inch margins. The evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages as specified above. Abstracts shall include the following: 1. Proposed objectives, concepts, ideas, methodologies. 2. A clear statement of work citing specific tasks to be performed and approach to be taken; 3. Brief description of relevant past experience and capabilities; 4. A rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate delineating by fiscal year major cost items (e.g., labor, material, subcontracts, etc.) estimated number of labor hours and any proposed fee. 5. Funding Profile - desired funding by fiscal year shall be identified (in the event we incrementally fund). All abstracts shall be submitted in four paper copies and electronic format on disc (PDF or MS Word) to the following address: Army Contracting Command, U.S. Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, Attn: CCAM-RDT (Ann Calvin), Building 401, Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604-5577. Facsimile and electronic submission is not authorized under this announcement. ABSTRACT EVALUATION/CRITERIA: Abstracts will be evaluated based on the following criteria: scientific merit, Offeror's capability, and the ROM cost. Once the abstracts are reviewed, all Offerors will be sent a decision letter providing a qualitative assessment and a Government recommendation relative to full proposal submission. Offerors whose abstracts are deemed to merit full proposal submission are invited to submit a proposal. Offerors whose abstracts are not selected for full proposal submission are still given the opportunity to submit a full proposal if they wish. Due to the nature of abstracts, the Government will not offer a debriefing at this step of the BAA process. PROPOSAL EVALUATION/CRITERIA: The selection of one or more sources for award will be based on a scientific and/or engineering evaluation of proposals (both technical and cost as it relates to technical effort) in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. Proposals will be evaluated on their own merit without regard to other proposals submitted under this announcement. Each proposal will receive an adjectival rating supported by narrative. The adjectival ratings and supporting narrative will be considered along with other factors including the extent of restrictions placed on technical data deliverables that limit the Government's ability to further exploit the results of the research and cost to the Government. The Government will develop an order of merit listing for each topic and for each of the two evaluation cycles contemplated under this Announcement. Proposed cost/cost to the Government will be evaluated, as appropriate, for realism and reasonableness. Any proposed cost share will be evaluated for its benefit in reducing program risk, achieving program objectives, and furthering the state-of-the-art. Any percentage of cost sharing proposed could result in greater evaluation credit. The proposal evaluation criteria in descending order of importance are: (1) the extent to which the proposed work satisfies the Army research need by use of innovative, efficient, affordable, and suitable approaches to the stated technical problem; (2) the merit of the Offeror's proposed approach to accomplish the scientific and technical objectives; (3) the experience and qualifications of the scientists, engineers, technicians, and other proposed personnel; (4) the suitability and availability of proposed facilities; and (5) proposed cost to the Government SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: Performance under Topics 01-2011, 02-2011, 03-2011, and 04-2011 will require access to and/or generation of technical data the export of which is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751 et. seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title 50, U.S.C. App 2401 et seq. Prior to award (if applicable), the successful offeror(s) will be required to provide an Export-Controlled DoD Data Agreement certification number issued in accordance with DoD Directive 52 30.25. This certification may be requested from the US-Canada Joint Certification Office, Defense Logistics Information Service, Federal Center, Battle Creek, MI 49037-3084, Telephone 1-800-352-3572. Pre-award access to or submission of a classified proposal is not authorized. Performance under Topics 01-2011 and 04-2011 are expected to require access to and/or generation of technical data classified up to the Secret level. Offerors responding to those topics must have a facility clearance, storage capability and the personnel required to perform at the Secret level. Evidence of facility clearance, storage capability and personnel cleared to perform at the Secret level shall be provided with proposal submission. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY: It is the Offeror's responsibility to identify, coordinate, and furnish supporting documentation for proposed use of any Government furnished property/equipment. DATA RIGHTS: The Government desires the maximum rights attainable to technical data and computer software and documentation developed/generated under any potential funding instrument awarded as a result of this Announcement. Therefore, the Offeror shall identify any technical data and/or computer software that they would intend to deliver with restrictions on use, reproduction or disclosure. See DFARS 227.71 for further information. DATA DELIVERABLES: All awards under this announcement will require data deliverables which will be specifically negotiated between the parties. The following data items can be anticipated to be required for all awards: (1) Contract Performance Management Plan; (2) Technical & Cost Performance Report; (3) Test Plan; (4) Test Report; and (5) Final Report INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS: Guidance provided in this section applies to submission of proposals under this Announcement. Offerors may submit proposals that address different topics or propose different solutions under a single topic and each will be evaluated independently. Offerors may also submit proposals that address only part of the problem under a topic. The proposal shall consist of two volumes, a technical volume and a cost volume. In presenting the proposal material, prospective Offerors are advised that the quality of the information is significantly more important than quantity. Offerors should confine the submissions to essential matters providing sufficient information to define their offer and establish an adequate basis for the Government to conduct its evaluation. AATD encourages and promotes teaming arrangements with research organizations to include academia, industry, and small businesses in order to achieve a mix of relevant expertise and capabilities for executing research and development efforts. Proposals should be marked with the solicitation and topic number. TECHNICAL VOLUME: The Technical Volume shall provide detail that justifies the selection of the technologies proposed to include benefits of the proposed technology relative to the topic objectives. A plan to develop and transition the technology to current or future Army aircraft shall also be included. The technical volume shall include a clear statement of the technical objectives and the specific approach to be pursued and supporting background experience. It shall contain a Statement of Research Effort (SORE), milestones, a biographical section describing key personnel, a description of the facilities and/or data sources to be employed in the effort, and a program management section. Offerors shall identify and substantiate the beginning and ending Technology Readiness Levels. The Technical Volume shall not exceed thirty (30) pages in length (minimum 12-point font). Page limitation includes any drawings, charts, etc., and excludes section dividers, table of contents, list of figures/tables, glossary of terms and cross-referencing indices (all of which are not considered content pages). COST VOLUME: Within the Cost Volume, Offerors shall identify the proposed funding instrument (e.g., FAR-based contract and type (cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost reimbursable, etc.) or TIA. For consistency, the Offeror shall submit other than cost or pricing data in the format suggested by FAR 15.403-5(b)(1), or in contractor's format containing the information outlined below, together with supporting breakdowns. The supporting schedules may include summary level estimating rationale used to generate the proposed costs. Information such as historical cost information, judgment, analogy to other similar efforts, etc. are generally accepted methods of projecting labor expenditures. Purchase order history, catalog prices, vendor quotations, engineering estimates, etc. are generally accepted methods of projecting material requirements. The cost proposal shall not contain overflow of information suited for the technical proposal. The Offeror shall assure any overlap of data, (such as man-hours) does not conflict between the cost and technical proposal. In the case of any conflict between the two, information in the cost proposal will take precedence. The Cost Proposal should include the following: (1) Funding - A funding profile by month and Government fiscal year (October-September). If proposing a cost share, display that share with the particular government funding and fiscal year. (2) Proposal Validity Period - Include date that proposal expires. Proposals will only be considered for award as stated in General Information and only during the stated validity period. (3) Pricing breakdowns - The Cost breakdowns shall be presented in three formats; a) Total Program Level - Present all costs by cost category (including applicable rates and factors) by year (calendar or contractor year used to develop proposed rates and factors). b) Task Level - Present all costs by cost category by task level by Government fiscal year. c) If proposing a cost share, display each share for each Government fiscal year. (4) Subcontractor Costs - The Offeror shall submit all subcontractor cost proposals and its proposal analyses with the cost proposal. Subcontractor proposals, if applicable, shall include all the same pricing requirements and be provided concurrent with the prime contractor's submission or due to any proprietary nature of the proposal, the subcontractor can submit the more detailed proposal directly to the Government. (5) Facilities Capital Cost of Money - If Facilities Capital Cost of Money is claimed, a properly executed DD Form 1861 is required in support of the dollars proposed. (6) If applicable, Security Clearance Information (specified in the Security Requirements Section) and the Subcontracting Plan (specified in the Subcontracting Plan Section) (if applicable). Provide Separate Summary Tables for the following cost elements: (1) Man-hours - Provide a summary table that shows man-hours by task without cost detail. Assure these documented man-hours do not conflict with the proposed man-hours in the technical proposal. (2) Rates and Factors - Provide a rate table by year for all labor and overhead rates and pricing factors. If Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) is in existence, that should be included, along with the Administrative Contracting Officer's (ACO's) contact information. (3) Other Direct Costs - Provide a summary table by task that reflects all proposed direct costs by cost categories. For example, Travel - Provide a summary table of destinations, number of trips, traveler's days, and unit prices for airfare and per diem for proposed travel. Material/Equipment - For material costs, identify what will be purchased and the basis for the estimated cost, e.g. vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc. In addition, if a proposal submitted in response to this solicitation is similar or substantially the same as another proposal that has been funded, is now being funded, or is pending with another Federal Agency or DoD component or the same DoD component, the proposer must so indicate in the Cost Volume of the Proposal and provide the following information: contract number (if applicable); Agency, Agency Point of Contact name, email and phone number. Included as an attachment to the announcement is the SUBCONTRACTING PLAN: (Not applicable if proposing award under a non-FAR instrument (i.e., a TIA) or if offeror is a SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN). Pursuant to the requirements of FAR part 19.702(a)(1), if the total amount of the proposal exceeds $650,000, and there are subcontracting possibilities, Offerors must submit a subcontracting plan. FAR part 52.219-9 defines a subcontracting plan and its requirements. Offerors shall incorporate the subcontracting plan as part of the Offeror's proposal submission. DFARS 226.370-8 discusses subcontracting incentives and goals with the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions. DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(A) and (B), discusses the appropriate use of DFARS Clauses 252.219 -7003 and 252.219-7004 in solicitations and contracts related to small, small disadvantaged and women-owned small business subcontracting plans. Offerors are cautioned that in solicitations where subcontracting opportunities exist, the Government will not execute a contract unless the Contracting Officer determines that the negotiated plan provides the maximum practicable opportunity for SBs, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and Veteran-owned Small Business concerns or HBCUs/MIs to participate in the performance of the contract. Offerors should note that DFARS 219.705-4 provides for a goal of 5% for SDB concerns and HBCUs/MIs. DEBRIEFINGS: When requested, the Government will provide a debriefing. The debriefing process will follow the time guidelines set out in FAR 15.506 but the debriefing content will be tailored to comply with the procedures set out in FAR 35.016 governing BAAs and the use of non-FAR based transactions. GENERAL INFORMATION and EVALUATION/AWARD CYCLE DATES: This BAA constitutes the total solicitation. There will be no other solicitation issued in regard to this requirement. Offerors should be alert for any BAA amendments that may revise abstract or proposal due dates. This announcement is open and valid through July 01, 2013 unless sooner cancelled. `Abstracts and proposals may be submitted at any time during the open period of this announcement. The Government anticipates making at least one award under each topic area, subject to availability of funds and proposals of rated as eligible for funding, and there are two cycles of planned potential awards, depending on funding availability. Abstracts and proposals can be submitted any time during the open period of this announcement but will be processed in the cycle based upon date of receipt and proposal validity period. Anticipated award dates for the two cycles are as follows: January 2012; and September 2013. To be considered for the January 2012 award, the abstract cut-off date is July 6, 2011 and the proposal cut-off date is not later than 1:00 p.m. EDT, October 17, 2011. To be considered for the second cycle September 27, 2013 award, the abstract cut-off date is March 15, 2013 and the proposal cut-off date is July 01, 2013 not later than 1:00 p.m EDT. Proposals received after the due dates for the first cycle indicated above will be held and evaluated in the subsequent evaluation cycle only if the proposal includes a validity date which has not expired. Any proposal received after the final cut-off date of July 01, 2013 will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition. All abstracts and proposals must be submitted in four (4) paper copies and electronic format on disc (PDF or MS Word) to the Army Contracting Command, Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, Attn: CCAM-RDT (Ann M. Calvin), Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577. Facsimile and electronic abstract and proposal submission is not authorized under this announcement. Offerors desiring an explanation or interpretation of this announcement shall request it in writing at the above address or e-mail: Ann Calvin, Contract Specialist at (ann.m.calvin@us.army.mil) and or Elizabeth A. Jackson, Contracting Officer at (elizabeth.a.jackson@us.army.mil). The Government anticipates at least one award for each topic area, subject to availability of funds under this announcement, though no minimum or maximum number of awards can be guaranteed. The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, part or none of the proposals received. The Government reserves the right to select for award only a portion of an Offeror's proposal (i.e. certain tasks vs. total program). This announcement is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any proposal preparation costs. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award of any contract will not be binding. Any information given to a prospective Offeror concerning this announcement, which is necessary in submitting an offer or the lack of which would be prejudicial to any other prospective Offeror(s), will be published as an amendment to this announcement. Contracting Office Address: Army Contracting Command, Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, ATTN: CCAM-RDT, Building 401, Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577 Place of Performance: Aviation Applied Technology Directorate ATTN: CCAM-RDT, Building 401, Lee Boulevard Fort Eustis VA 23604-5577 Point of Contact(s): Elizabeth A. Jackson (Contracting Officer), (757) 878-2100 and/or Ann M. Calvin (Contract/Agreement Specialist), (757) 878-5703
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/be5423f10f04ec775b70f1c1eb79d364)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AMCOM-CC) ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard Fort Eustis VA
- Zip Code: 23604-5577
- Zip Code: 23604-5577
- Record
- SN02453150-W 20110522/110520234609-be5423f10f04ec775b70f1c1eb79d364 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |