A -- COMPACT KINETIC ENERGY MISSILE (CKEM) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -- Title: Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) SOL BAA DAAH01-00-R-RB01. Technical POC: Mr. George Snyder, AMSAM-RD-PS/Propulsion & Structures Directorate, (256) 876-3048 email: Snyder-GW@redstone.army.mil. Contract POC: Ms. Patsy Garrison, AMSAM-AC-RD-B/Procurement, (256) 876-0908, e-mail: garrison-pc@redstone.army.mil. The Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) is soliciting comments on this "Request for Information" for concept studies, system design and testing to resolve critical issues associated with the development of a Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM). CKEM will be the next generation hypervelocity missile, smaller, lighter and faster than the current generation kinetic energy missile, but still capable of providing overwhelming lethality against advanced armor and capable of defeating Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) 1-3 and threat Active Protection Systems (APS). CKEM will also be capable of defeating highly maneuverable rotor-wing aircraft. The CKEM weapon system is planned to be incorporated into the Future Combat Vehicle (FCV), heavy ground platforms, and rotary wing platforms. The CKEM development program will run from years FY00-FY05 in two phases with two options in Phase I, only. The Phase I period, from FY00-FY04, is structured with two separate and parallel segments. One segment focuses on system development and includes the concept studies, system design and integration testing necessary to resolve critical system design and performance issues. The second segment, under a separate contracting action, focuses on technology and component development, and includes development of the fundamental technologies necessary to achieve the CKEM objectives, as well as the incorporation of those technologies into components that are designed and demonstrated to meet established performance and flight qualification requirements. During the System Development Segment, selected sources will perform the 6 month Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) System Concept Definition Study contract(s) with a follow-on option (Option 1) for a 42 month System Design and Analysis, and a second follow-on option (Option 2) for an 18 month Critical Issue and Risk Assessment which would run concurrently with the final 18 months of Option 1. The objective of the CKEM System Concept Definition Study contract(s) is to explore alternative missile concepts to determine the most promising approach to meeting the CKEM goals and to translate the selected concept(s) into quantitative subsystem and component performance requirements that will establish the objectives for the Technology and Component Development Segment. Under Option 1, the design of the selected concept(s) would be matured and refined to reflect the results of Technology and Component Development Segment and to be compatible with FCV and other platform development efforts. Under Option 2, sufficient subsystem fabrication and integration testing would be performed to provide a basis for determining risk and achievable performance, including lethality and countermeasure robustness versus missile sizing. The CKEM Technology and Component Development, Segment 2 will be a separately funded effort comprised of fundamental technology development in industry and academia and Government laboratories. This segment will focus on issues already identified and on requirements generated by the CKEM System Concept Definition Study contract(s). Continuous status of technology and component development efforts will be provided to the System Development Segment participants via an IPT structure. One or more of the sources will be selected to perform Phase II, the 18-24 month CKEM System Development and Demonstration in the FY04-05 timeframe, to complete missile system development and to demonstrate system performance during flight testing against an array of advanced armor targets. The CKEM weapon system should significantly improve warfighting capabilities by: enabling implementation of future fighting vehicle concepts on the battlefield; by defeating Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) 1-3 and threat Active Protection System (APS) with overwhelming lethality utilizing a lighter, smaller, faster, KE missile against future advanced and active threat armors; by a significantly increasing KE stowed kills for a multitude of launch platforms, including platforms that offer excellent strategic mobility; and by providing opportunities for missiles in the Strike Force. Specifically some of the more-aggressive CKEM system level performance goals to be achieved are: Total Missile Length: 4 feet, Total Missile Weight: 50 lbs, Range: 0.4-5Kms with growth potential for close in engagements of 200m and extended range of 5-8Kms, Velocity: 6.5+ Mach, Penetrator Energy: 10MJ. The following technologies are believed to be critical for enabling the successful accomplishment of the system performance goals and objectives: propulsion, enhanced lethality, and guidance technology. In propulsion the development of more efficient, high performance, non-detonable, minimum signature propellant is required to achieve the higher velocities necessary for overwhelming KE lethality from minimum range to 5 Km against armor targets, recognizing the limited penetrator mass available in a 4 ft/50 lb missile. Within the CKEM Technology and Component Development Segment it will also be necessary to characterize the contributions of penetrator materials, mass, shape, impact velocity, and target interactions in order to assess the effectiveness of novel lethal mechanisms against advanced armor with active and reactive threat countermeasures. The development of miniaturized guidance and control component technologies capable of operating through the high acceleration environment to enable accuracy from short-range to 5km, while allowing "fire on the move" capabilities for future applications is also necessary. The government has particular interest in the offeror's concept definition process, as it is pertains to critical performance, design features and trade-off areas. Specifically, the government isinterested in the process for exploring novel design approaches for the lethal mechanism and for evaluating the lethality of alternative missile concepts; for achieving compatibility of the missile and launcher design concept with the Future Combat Vehicle and other ground (& potentially airborne) weapon platforms; for determining required missile longitudinal and lateral acceleration, motor performance characteristics, guidance implementation scheme, control actuation system, and flight computer capability and for achieving a maximum number of stored kills within the constraints posed by the lethality requirements and the alternative launch platforms. The government is also interested in the processes that will be used to define system level performance characteristics such as, system timelines from target detection to missile launch, field of engagement, rate of fire, functional performance requirements for the targeting sensor(s), and terminal accuracy against stationary ground targets, crossing ground targets, and maneuvering rotor wing aircraft. While these features do not capture all characteristics or trade-offs offerors should discuss these features in their proposal. PROGRAM FUNDING: Pending Congressional approval, the Army has budgeted approximately $1.5 M of FY 00 funds for up to three CKEM System Concept Definition Study contracts and anticipates approximately $6 M in FY 01 for the exercising of options across all contracts. Total program funds through outyears may approach $125 M for all contractors and all options. Outyear funding is subject to adjustments in the Army Science &Technology program priorities. SCOPE: System support is solicited for the System Development Segment of the CKEM program with each source formulating the system approach and design requirements CKEM missile system during the Phase I System Concept Definition Study effort. This includes clarification of operational requirements, quantification of military benefit, development of new and innovative design concepts, performance of the system trades necessary for a top-level missile system design, and the allocation/flow-down of requirements to the component level. Based on the component requirements, the status of relevant technologies for the recommended concept(s) will be assessed and specific technology and component requirements necessary to achieve the defined level of missile performance will be identified for inclusion in the Technology and Component Development Segment. The key issues will be also defined, together with an evaluation methodology to determine if the resulting technology and component development will satisfy system requirements. A process will be defined for rebalancing system design to accommodate variances in the technology and component developments compared to initial requirements, and constraints imposed by candidate launcher platform designs. Option 1- System Design and Analysis. If exercised, this option is for approximately 42 months and will include detailed system design and rebalancing as required to reflect the emerging results from the Technology and Component Development Segment and to ensure compatibility of the missile and missile launcher with the FCV and other candidate launch platforms. During this option, the sources will define the system concept in detail and perform system trades and assessments (utilizing both 6-Degree-of-Freedom (6-DOF) and Force-on-Force (FOF) models; compatible to Interactive Distributed Engineering Evaluation & Analysis Simulation (IDEEAS), Modular Semiautomated Support Forces (MODSAF), Combined Arms Support Task Force Evaluation Model (CASTFOREM) and/or other HLA simulations). The Army intends that assessments of components may include state-of-the art components from other Government programs as well as those being developed under other Army contracts. This option will include execution of interface control documents as required, conducting a Preliminary Design Review (PDR), defining the technical risk and developing a risk reduction plan, developing costbreakouts for all elements and developing objectives/thresholds for key performance parameters and the various elements of program life-cycle costs for incorporation in a cost as an independent variable (CAIV) strategy, further define investment strategies for critical technologies, and support quarterly technical reviews. Option 2 -- Critical Issue and Risk Assessment. If exercised, this option is for approximately 18 months and will consist of subsystem fabrication, including component integration; and subsystem and system testing, to resolve missile system issues, determine performance and assess risk. This option will demonstrate critical components such as but not limited to propulsion, guidance/navigation units, lethality mechanisms, and other key components, including the components developed in the Technology and Component Development Segment. Testing will include hardware in the loop simulation, and testing under flight representative conditions when required to assess risk. During this phase, a Critical Design Review (CDR) will be provided and all components will be demonstrated in a series of increasingly integrated tests culminating in testing of at least six CKEM subsystems/systems. Phase II, -- System Development and Demonstration. If exercised this phase is for approximately 18-24 months and will include the development and demonstration of the complete CKEM system in full-up integrated flight tests against designated targets. Throughout the entire effort, the source will provide all required test support, and will host a series of cost and technical performance review meetings approximately quarterly. For each stage -- Phase I Basic, Phase I Option I, Phase I Option II and Phase II- a final technical report and briefing will be delivered covering all aspects of system design, analysis, and experimental results. SUBMISSION PROCESS: Potential offerors are invited to submit recommendations and comments ONLY on this "Request for Information" to the Contracting Officer no later than 15 Nov 1999 for consideration of inclusion into the BAA at: Commander USA AMCOM, AMSAM-AC-RD-BA/BLDG: 5400(Ms. Patsy Garrison) Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. When the BAA is published in the CBD, submission of proposals will begin 30 days after the CBD is published. Proposals not selected for funding will be disposed of in a manner that protects proprietary data. All proprietary material should be clearly marked and will be held in the strictest confidence. Initial awards are anticipated to occur within 120 days of receipt of the formal proposals, pending availability of funds. All correspondence must reference BAA DAAH01-00-R-RB01 and identify the title of the proposed effort. The title page for the proposal must reference BAA DAAH01-00-R-RB01 and contain the following information: the title; the date; the name and address of the offering institution(s); the principal investigator's name, phone number, fax number, e-mail address (if available), and mailing address (if different from the offering institution); the duration of the proposed effort; and the signature of an authorized official from the submitting institution(s). The title page must also include total funds requested for the base effort and all options and describe any cost share proposed. The document page limits are as follows: proposals may not exceed 50 pages. The proposals must be single-sided with double-spaced text, page size no larger than 8 1/2 X 11 inches, font size no smaller than 12 point, and with one-inch left/right margins, 1.25 inch top margins, and 1.0 inch bottom margins on all pages. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: Proposals submitted under this BAA shall contain technical, budget and other supporting information. Proposals shall be formatted in two (2) volumes. Offerors may be either individual organizations or teamed efforts. In the event the effort is a teamed one, the organizational structure of the team shall be clearly defined in the proposal. Volume I shall be the technical portion and shall include an Executive Summary, a Technical Approach, a Description of Relevant Prior Work, a Program Plan including a Statement of Work (SOW), Milestone Charts and Program Schedules, a Facilities and Equipment Description and a Management Plan. Volume I shall be limited to 50 pages including all figures, tables, foldouts and charts. Resumes shall also be submitted with the Technical Proposal for all principal personnel. Resumes will not be included in the 50 page limitation. All paragraphs containing proprietary information must be clearly marked. Volume II shall contain all the cost/price information with supporting information. The cost breakdown shall include materials, direct labor, indirect costs and other costs such as special test equipment or travel. Offerors shall provide exhibits as necessary to substantiate the cost elements. Detailed costs must be provided with the exception of the options, which must provide rough order of magnitude costs. Cost sharing is encouraged and any cost share must be separately identified in the proposal. Proposals must: (1) Define a representative concept and accompanying design specifying: overall system architecture; guidance scheme, hardware components (propulsion, guidance components, sensors and sensor interfaces, and lethal mechanism), energy management methodology, software methodology and tools, etc. to be used or developed; packaging and configuration; weight, size, and expected performance and operating characteristics. (2) Provide definition and description of the critical issues associated with CKEM, the proposed approach to tradeoffs, evaluation methodology, and system development to include six degree-of-freedom simulations, mock-ups, virtual prototyping, and DIS/HLA based performance evaluation tools. (3) Provide a statement of work, schedule, list of deliverables and costs for all options of the proposed program. (4) Specify tasks that will be used to benchmark overall performance of the components, subsystems, and system. Hardware in the loop testing is strongly encouraged. (5) Identify offerors and team members' facilities and equipment that will support the effort. (6) Identify any government-furnished facilities, equipment and/or information that are needed to support the effort. (7) Describe the team members and their qualifications for the proposed effort as it applies to the major skill areas of the program e.g. Missile Concept Definition, Requirements Analysis, Kinetic Energy Penetrators, Propulsion, and Hypervelocity Guidance. EVALUATION CRITERIA: Proposals will be evaluated by the Government with respect to the following evaluation criteria: (1) Technical Soundness and Operational Merit of Proposed Concept; (2) Realism of Schedule and Soundness of Management Plan (to include risk mitigation efforts) as demonstrated by Quantifiable Milestones; and (3) Proposed Cost and Cost Reasonableness. The subcriteria for the Technical area are equally weighted and are: (A) Adequacy of the System Design Process; (B) Requirements Definition; (C) Adequacy of the Analysis/Risk; (D) Operational/Logistic Impact; and (E) Performance Limitations. The subcriteria for the Management are equally weighted and are: (A) Schedule/Milestones; and (B) Management Performance. The Cost will be evaluated on the basis of reasonableness of the proposal and how realistic the cost numbers are that are presented. The technical area is significantly more important than the Management. Management and Cost are of equal importance to one another. All awards made in response to this BAA will be subject to availability of government funds. Evaluation and selection of proposals for award will be made on the basis of criteria listed and overall balance considered most advantageous to the ARMY CKEM Program. OTHER INFORMATION: The provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 9.5 (Organizational Conflict of Interest) apply in an award under this BAA. Accordingly, a potential offeror is cautioned to review its contract and subcontract history, and before incurring substantial proposal preparation expense, to determine whether or not in its judgment a real or potential conflict of interest does or might exist that will prevent the contracting officer from considering its proposal, or making an award under this BAA. Questionable circumstances or situations should be addressed to the contracting officer for BAA DAAH01-00-R-RB01 at the ARMY address for resolution and decision as soon as possible. Offerors are also cautioned that (1) the absence of any communication between offerors and the contracting officer on these matters (real or potential conflict of interest) shall not preclude the contracting officer from conducting his or her own research and analysis, and arriving at his or her own determination relative to the existence of real or potential conflicts of interest, and (2) in the event of a determination of a conflict of interest, the government shall not be liable for the cost of proposal preparation and submission. The Government anticipates making multiple awards. Proposals may be considered for funding for a period of up to one year. Issuanceof this BAA does not obligate the government to pay any proposal preparation costs. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by the ARMY. Offerors should recommend acquisition streamlining where appropriate. Teaming is encouraged, e.g., industry and US Universities. Participation by Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) is strongly encouraged as either a contractor or subcontractor although, due to th Posted 10/13/99 (W-SN391288).

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0405 19991015\SP-0009.MSC)