SOURCES SOUGHT
A -- Next Generation Chemical Detector XM14
- Notice Date
- 5/13/2016
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 334519
— Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, ACC - APG (W911SR) Edgewood, E4455 LIETZAN ROAD, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 21010-5424, United States
- ZIP Code
- 21010-5424
- Solicitation Number
- W911SR-RFI-5002
- Archive Date
- 6/28/2016
- Point of Contact
- Jemel Hogan, Phone: 4104364068
- E-Mail Address
-
jemel.m.hogan.civ@mail.mil
(jemel.m.hogan.civ@mail.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- DISCLAIMER THIS SOURCES SOUGHT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) TO BE SUBMITTED. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SOLICITATION AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONSES IN ANY FORM ARE NOT OFFERS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT AS A RESULT OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. ANY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS TO THIS TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION IS STRICTLY VOLUNTARY. INTRODUCTION The Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) Edgewood Division in Edgewood, Maryland 21010-5401 is issuing this sources sought synopsis as a means of conducting market research to identify potential sources having an interest and industry technologies available to support/provide the engineering and manufacturing development, low-rate initial production, and full-rate production of the XM14 Multi-phase Sample Analysis Chemical Agent Detector, formerly known as Next Generation Chemical Detector (NGCD) 3 - Sample Analysis or Multi-Sample Identifier. The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD), Joint Project Manager for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Contamination Avoidance (JPM NBC CA) will use the information acquired from this Notice to optimize or adjust the XM14 acquisition strategy. The result of this market research will contribute to determining the method of procurement, if a requirement materializes. Based on the responses to this sources sought notice/market research, this requirement may be set-aside for small businesses (in full or in part) or procured through full and open competition. Multiple awards may be made. All small business set-aside categories will be considered. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted or acknowledged. Feedback will be provided to companies regarding submissions. The JPM NBC CA also anticipates conducting an Industry Day for XM14 in mid-late Aug 16, please monitor Federal Business Opportunities for the official announcement. PROGRAM BACKGROUND The XM14 program is currently in the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase. Through full and open competition, ACC-APG awarded three contracts to fabricate prototypes and mature the technologies to meet the requirements based on the 2013 Draft Capability Development Document for the Next Generation Chemical Detector Increments 3 (NGCD 3) (Sample Analysis). The Government is currently evaluating these prototypes. REQUIRED CAPABILITY The US Army, US Air Force, and US Marine Corps desires the capability to conduct a field-level analysis of samples to confirm presumptive threat detection and monitoring the post-attack environment for remaining hazards. The operator can collect the samples with currently fielded sampling systems (e.g. Quicksilver CBRE Sampling included with Dismounted Reconnaissance Sets, Kits, and Outfits (DR SKO) or with collectors fielded with the XM14. The XM14 will also be employed in dismounted configurations specifically designed for each service and a mounted configuration in the Stryker NBCRV, replacing the Chemical Biological Mass Spectrometer (CBMS) Block II. System Guidance. The information below is provided to identify some notional guidance on desired system attributes to help with responses to this Notice. (1) The XM14 may consist an analyzer, multiple front ends, and multiple sample collectors to cover all threat phases and configurations. (2) XM14 analyzer is two-man portable. (3) The XM14 collectors are handheld. (4) Identify and quantify thirty (30) Chemical Warfare Agents and Non-traditional Agents at very low levels. (5) The XM14 can analyze samples collected with fielded sample collecting kits. (6) The XM14 mounted configuration will be mounted in the NBCRV Stryker and be able to analyze surface contamination. (7) Be capable of rejecting common battlespace, environmental, and platform interferences. (8) Natural Environmental Factors. XM14 will be capable of worldwide operations and deployment without degradation under climatic conditions where chemical agents can be effectively employed. (9) Survives normal operating environmental conditions and hazards such as, but not limited to, shock, corrosion, vibration, electromagnetic interference (EMI), dust, smoke, fungus, petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POLs), salt water spray/fog, exhaust from aircraft and vehicles, and lightning environments. (10) Survives long term storage conditions without performance degradation or maintenance. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Any solicitations pertaining to XM14 is anticipated to have a security classification level of Secret, a performance specification with a classified Secret appendix and documents marked Export Controlled // ITAR restricted. ELIGIBILITY The applicable NAICS code for this requirement is 334519. Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing with a Small Business Size Standard of 500. The Product Service Code is 6665 Hazard-Detecting Instruments and Apparatus. SUBMISSION DETAILS Interested businesses should submit a brief capabilities statement package (no more than three 8.5 X 11 inch pages, font no smaller than 10 point) demonstrating ability to provide the systems listed in this Technical Description. Documentation should be in bullet format. No phone or email solicitations with regards to the status of the RFP will be accepted prior to its release. a. Content. In your response to this Notice, please address the following: (1) Your company's capability to design and manufacture a system that will meet the performance described in this Notice. If adjusting or alleviating any performance or schedule guidance would substantially reduce costs (unit or sustainment), enhance performance, or shrink schedule, please explain. (2) General description of the system your company currently has or may design to address the requirements in this Notice. (3) Please identify any Commercial products your company makes that may meet some of the system guidance. (4) The current technology readiness level (TRL) of the proposed system using the maturity criteria/definition provided in Attachment 1 and describing why the system meets or exceeds TRL 6 for chemical detection. (5) Estimate detection levels of your system for a subset of relevant compounds with special attention to those with saturated volatility ≤11 mg/m3 at 25°C, and below, in vapor, aerosol, liquid, and solid phases, as applicable. (6) Summarize any existing quality, reliability, and supportability data, if available. b. Submission Instructions. Your response to this Sources Sought, including any capabilities statement, shall be electronically submitted to the Technical POC Traci Sheely and the Contract Specialist, Jemel Hogan, in either Microsoft Word or Portable Document Format (PDF), via email, traci.l.sheely.civ@mail.mil and jemel.m.hogan.civ@mail.mil, no later than 13 June 2016 and include this synopsis number in subject line of e-mail and on all enclosed documents. Information and materials submitted in response to this request WILL NOT be returned. DO NOT SUBMIT CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. If your organization has the potential capacity to provide the required products/systems, please provide the following information: 1) Organization name, address, primary points of contact (POCs) and their email address, FAX, website address, telephone number, and type of ownership for the organization; and 2) Tailored capability statements addressing the requirements of this notice, with appropriate documentation supporting claims of organizational and staff capability. If significant subcontracting or teaming is anticipated in order to deliver technical capability, organizations should address the administrative and management structure of such arrangements. All data received in response to this Sources Sought that is marked or designated as corporate or proprietary will be fully protected from any release outside the Government.   ATTACHMENT 1 JPEO-CBD REMOTE SENSING FOR CBRN DETECTION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS Technology Readiness Levels are a set of nine graded definitions or a description of states of technology maturity. They were originated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and adapted by the Department of Defense (DoD) for use in its acquisition systems. A copy of the definitions is provided below for convenience and can also be accessed at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/TRA2011.pdf TRL Definition Description Supporting Information 1 Basic principles observed and reported. Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development (R&D). Examples might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties. Published research that identifies the principles that underlie this technology. References to who, where, when. 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated. Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies. Publications or other references that out-line the application being considered and that provide analysis to support the concept. 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept. Active R&D is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative. Results of laboratory tests performed to measure parameters of interest and comparison to analytical predictions for critical subsystems. References to who, where, and when these tests and comparisons were performed. 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment. Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory. System concepts that have been considered and results from testing laboratory-scale breadboard(s). References to who did this work and when. Provide an estimate of how breadboard hardware and test results differ from the expected system goals. 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment. Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include "high-fidelity" laboratory integration of components. Results from testing laboratory breadboard system are integrated with other supporting elements in a simulated operational environment. How does the "relevant environment" differ from the expected operational environment? How do the test results compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? Was the breadboard system refined to more nearly match the expected system goals?   TRL Definition Description Supporting Information 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment. Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment. Results from laboratory testing of a proto-type system that is near the desired con-figuration in terms of performance, weight, and volume. How did the test environment differ from the operational environment? Who performed the tests? How did the test compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before moving to the next level? 7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6 by requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in an air-craft, in a vehicle, or in space). Results from testing a prototype system in an operational environment. Who per-formed the tests? How did the test com-pare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before moving to the next level? 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) of the system in its intended weapon system to deter-mine if it meets design specifications. Results of testing the system in its final configuration under the expected range of environmental conditions in which it will be expected to operate. Assessment of whether it will meet its operational requirements. What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before finalizing the design? 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations. Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. OT&E reports Clarifying Definitions: BREADBOARD: Integrated components that provide a representation of a system/subsystem and which can be used to determine concept feasibility and to develop technical data. They are typically configured for laboratory use to demonstrate the technical principles of immediate interest and may resemble final system/subsystem in function only. HIGH FIDELITY: Addresses form, fit, and function. A high fidelity laboratory environment would involve testing with equipment that can simulate and validate all system specifications within a laboratory setting. LOW FIDELITY: A representative of the component or system that has limited ability to provide anything but first order information about the end product. Low fidelity assessments are used to provide trend analysis. MODEL: A reduced scale, functional form of a system, near or at operational specification. Models will be sufficiently hardened to allow demonstration of the technical and operational capabilities required of the final system. OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: Environment that addresses all of the operational requirements and specifications required of the final system to include platform/packaging.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/68f9678c94f279ea1d7e028046071d87)
- Record
- SN04116589-W 20160515/160513234413-68f9678c94f279ea1d7e028046071d87 (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 |