A -- COMPACT KINETIC ENERGY MISSILE (CKEM) BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

Notice Date

October 5, 2000

Contracting Office

Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Acquisition Center, Research Development and Engineering Center, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000

ZIP Code

35898-5000

Solicitation Number

DAAH01-00-R-RB05

Response Due

October 20, 2000

Point of Contact

Contracting Officer: Patsy Garrison (256) 842-7406; Contract Specialist: Marcia N. Tully (256) 876-1351

Description

The following questions and answers are provided for subject BAA: 1. In the past MICOM has rejected any consideration of aluminized propellants, and has focused on liquid mixtures such as hydrazine-IRFNA (red fuming nitric acid). Is there still a restriction on the proposed missile system. Or, is the vehicle moving so fast that the plume signature is no longer as critical a factor as in prior weapons systems? ANSWER: Aluminized Propellants typically provide by products and residue that blind or "Bloom" the targeting FLIR and it has historically been avoided for guided missile applications. If there is an aluminized formulation that provided the energy content needed, met (or led to) the insensitive munition properties desired and does not prevent the targeting sensors and communication system from performing their duties, then an aluminized formulation would be of interest. 2. Will the contract award for Segment II be multiple awards? ANSWER: The BAA states that "The Government anticipates making multiple awards." 3. The BAA does not specify contract type or terms and conditions. Is a model contract available or does this information exist in some other format? ANSWER: The contract type is not restricted, although a cost type contract would be more appropriate for this type of effort. The BAA also states that "Cost sharing is encouraged..." Once the contractors are selected, they will be sent a draft contract which will contain terms and conditions. 4. You indicate in the first year there are four propulsion tasks to be funded. Will the same tasks be funded in the follow on years, or will there be a down selection at some point in the multiple year effort? ANSWER: It is envisioned that there could be as many as four propulsion tasks funded. The actual number of contracts is completely dependent on the funds available and the quality of the proposals to meet the CKEM objectives. Continued efforts will again be determined by the quality of the demonstrated performance capabilities of those participating and meeting the CKEM objectives. It is the Army's intention to promote and continue multiple vendors with promising technology as far as possible after the one year basic effort into the appropriate options. 5. Since you allow teaming, will the Segment I Primes be allowed to preferentially team with Segment II contractors? ANSWER: The Army is attempting to provide the System Primes with the most advanced technological alternative to construct the optimized CKEM (not several optimized subsystems grouped into a solution). Teaming of preferred vendors as a function of a given concept is natural and will not be stopped, but the Army is attempting to provide an opportunity for the "predisposed" System Primes to potentially change component vendors. 6. Will the Segment I Primes be allowed to compete the resulting Segment II technology during Option 2/Phase 2 or will they have to acquire it from the Segment II contractor who developed it? ANSWER: See previous answer. 7. It is noted in the solicitation that emphasis was placed on demonstrating Ignition System Advancement using emerging technologies such as laser ignition devices. How many outputs or devices is the program looking at using? ANSWER: The CKEM program must demonstrate matured technology in a relevant environment prior to the April FY03 Technology Maturation Decision meetings. This four-star level review is a major decision point of all future potential armaments. The number of devices are defined by the number required to convince the Army that the component is viable and that the device when integrated into its subsystem is viable and the device when integrated into the overall missile system is viable. 8. Is the program looking to use laser initiation for motor flight motor ignition solely or for other functions such as separation systems, guidance and control ignition, etc.? ANSWER: Other applications may become of interest but at the moment the primary utilization is that of motor ignition. 9. If AMCOM were to see one ordnance related technology demonstrated and carried into the next phase of development, what might that technology be? ANSWER: This question is unanswerable. The CKEM program is focused on designing, developing, maturing, and demonstrating an integrated missile system. Ordnance is one element of the overall system, which must be developed in concert with the other subsystems in the missile. Hence it is not possible to identify a single subsystem technology outside the overall optimized missile system. 10. The BAA states that "Proposals must: 1) Define a representative missile system for which the proposed technology and component(s) apply, to include the proposed form factor, functional interface and performance and environmental requirements for the proposed component(s)... This requires that we either 1) develop a full up missile design, which is beyond our purview, or 2) that we have relatively detailed knowledge of the system concepts that are being developed by the primes. To this point in time, only two primes have been willing to talk with us, and neither of them has been willing to share their system concepts. One of these primes commented that this was an interesting issue and that AMRDEC needs to direct them to share the information with the technology contractors. Is it the intent or a desired option that we contact one or more of the current Phase I System Developers to obtain information regarding their system concept to address this requirement? ANSWER: It is very desirous that the component vendor's proposals be coordinated with the System Primes. The Primes have been contacted and have been instructed to coordinate with potential Segment II vendors. Also, the answers to questions 11 and 23 may be of additional benefit. 11. Are the CKEM Segment I proposals available to us to review to make sure our proposals technology is relevant to the CKEM concepts? If not, what information is available on the CKEM concepts being developed? ANSWER: The Segment I proposals are not available, however, upon request a sample Segment I statement of work is available electronically. Also, the answers to questions 10 and 23 may be of additional benefit. 12. Phase I contains Segment I and Segment II. Segment I contains option I (24 mos) and option II (18 mos). But phase 1 lasts 4 years (FY00-04). Is Segment II a parallel effort to Segment I in phase 1? Or will Segment I be placed in phase II (FY04-05)? ANSWER: The CKEM program is focused on designing, developing, maturing, and demonstrating hypervelocity technology prior to and illustrated at the April FY03 Technology Maturation Decision meeting established by the Chief of Staff of the Army. All Segments and options are keyed to this objective. Segment I and Segment II are going to be executed in parallel. All subsequent options following the (~1year) basic effort must be structured consistent with the April FY03 Decision meetings. Phase II is independent of the Phase I efforts and will be executed under separate contracting efforts. 13. Does the Army encourage teaming with others? ANSWER: Yes, the BAA states "Teaming is encouraged." 14. Could we obtain information regarding the current progress of CKEM both in-house (army) and for the four contractors outstanding? ANSWER: It is strongly encouraged to explore both the Segment I System Primes and the Army System Concepts and technologies. It is very advantageous to propose technologies, which are consistent to one of the four Segment I Primes. 15. The BAA states that, "Proposals for technology development will also be provided to the system development contractors for their consideration during the remaining concept definition activities." Does this mean that the government (AMRDEC) will provide our proposal to the system contractors, or does the government expect us to submit copies of our proposals or tailored proposals to each of the system contractors? ANSWER: It is the government's intention to expose the System Primes with the most advanced technologies available through their detail design phase. The Component BAA proposals will not be delivered to the Primes nor will the Primes participate in the selection process. However, the Primes enabling technology list will serve as a priority list of components to be funded. 16. The BAA states that, "After award of the technology/component development contracts, continuous status of technology and component development efforts will be provided to the relevant Segment I participants." Does this mean that we will be required to keep all system primes who are awarded Option 1 contracts updated on our progress, or only those primes to whom our particular efforts are "relevant?" ANSWER: As stated earlier, the Army is attempting to provide the System Primes with the most advanced technological alternative to construct the optimized CKEM (not several optimized subsystems grouped into a solution). It is the intention of the Army that all component vendors keep the System Primes abreast of their component status. Conflicts will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The Army also sees this process as an opportunity for "predisposed" System Primes to potentially change component vendors through this process. 17. The BAA states that, "Sources will also support a CKEM Preliminary Design Review that will be conducted by the System Development contractors during Phase I, Option 1 and a Critical Design Review that will be conducted by the System Development contractors during Phase I, Option 2." The use of the formal terms PDR and CDR imply reviews per the applicable government data items. These data items are very specific about the level of design definition, analysis and development testing that has to be completed for each of these mileposts. This definition is appropriate to a full-scale development program, but not to a technology effort such as this. The funding available for the CKEM Segment II effort does not support formal PDR and CDR meetings and it is suggested that the terminology be changed to indicate less formal levels of review for this activity. ANSWER: Your recommendation is noted and will be taken into advisement. 18. The BAA states that that each page of the proposal must be no larger than 8 X 11 inches, yet later implies that foldouts may be used (" including all figures, tables, foldouts and charts.") Is the 8 X 11 inches restriction firm or is a limited number of foldouts permitted? Foldouts would be very useful in displaying the program logical flow and summarizing key tasks. ANSWER: A maximum of 12 foldouts are permitted. 19. In the evaluation criteria section the relevance of the proposed technology/component to the CKEM concepts being developed in Segment I of the CKEM program is listed as the first item, and is later referred to as a go/no-go criterion. This is a concern for the same reasons discussed in Item 10.b. above. As the situation now stands, we do not have any insight into the system concepts being developed by the primes. ANSWER: The Primes are required to provide a detailed list of "enabling" technologies. This list will be used as well as the technical experts within the "Army" to form a screening structure through which the Army will assess which technologies are of most benefit to the CKEM program. 20. In the modification to the BAA published on 23 August reference is made to a classification guide for these efforts. "Classification guidance for these efforts is contained in the CKEM Classification Guide (Draft) and the Kinetic Energy Penetrator." Will AMCOM AMRDEC provide these documents so that we may preclude the inadvertent inclusion of classified information in our proposal? ANSWER: The Security Classification Guide is in "Draft" stage and will be forwarded at the earliest possible time. Should a potential vendor have technology that is developed under another program which is classified, that program's classification guide would cover that material. 21. I am a new faculty member at a university is classified as a Minority Institution so I thought there might be another funding avenue you knew of which targeted such institutions, performing work in areas mentioned in the CKEM announcement. ANSWER: There are no funds that we are aware of specifically set aside for minority institutions to perform work in areas mentioned in the CKEM announcment. However, upon request, we will provide a bidder's listing, for subcontract possibilities. 22. The BAA states that, "Proposals for technology development will also be provided to the System Development Contractors for their consideration...". Will the System Development Contractors play a role in proposal evaluation? If so, what weighting will be given to the System Development Contractor's preferences? ANSWER: The System Primes are required to generate a list of "Enabling" technologies for their particular concept. The collection of these enabling technologies will serve as one element in the consideration list used by the government experts to determine which technologies are of greatest value to the Army for the development and maturation for the CKEM program. System Primes will not. 23. Are offerors "on-their-own" to enter into separate Confidential/ Proprietary Disclosure Agreements with each of the System Development Contractors as part of proposal preparation? Does the Army Aviation and Missile Command intend to facilitate the establishment of such agreements with all Parties? ANSWER: Yes, Offerors are strongly encouraged to coordinate with the System Primes so that the applicability of the proposed technology is immediately evident. 24. Please include a listing of the companies, addresses and contacts that won Segment 1 programs on the CKEM program. ANSWER: (a) DAAH01-00-C-R106, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control -- Dallas, P.O. Box 650003, Dallas, TX 75266- 0003, Linda Scott, (972) 603-7591; (b) DAAH01-00-C-R107, BAE Systems, 6500 Tracor Lane, Austin, TX 78725-2070, Ginny Tamen, (512) 929-4614; (c) DAAH01- 00-C-R108, Military Technology, Inc. (Miltec), 6767 Old Madison Pike, N.W. Bldg 2, Suite 200, Huntsville, AL 35806, Tim Magnusson, (256) 971-1970, Ext. 225; (d) DAAH01-00-C-R109, Raytheon Missile Systems, 1151 East Hermans Road, Tuscon, AZ 85706, Bruce Perlman (520) 794-1441 27. The BAA states that, "A fifteen day extension for the certified costing data is available upon request". Should this request be made separately prior to the proposal submission or can/should the request be made concurrent with the proposal submission? ANSWER: The referenced statement is hereby deleted from the BAA solicitation. Once the contractors are selected, they will be requested to submit certifications and representations. Certified cost & pricing data will not be required. 28. What are the guidelines for electronic submission? Do we still need to print out the required hard copies? Also, proposals are submitted to you at Bldg. 5400. Where is your office located in Bldg 5400? ANSWER: The following statement is hereby deleted from the BAA solicitation. "Electronic submissions are acceptable." All proposals shall be submitted in hard copy to the address indicated in the BAA. Proposals shall be brought into the South entrance of Bldg 5400, where a phone call may be placed to the POC for pickup. 29. Pursuant to Reference (a), we hereby request a change to the Volume I page limitation from 75 to 125 pages. With the current page limitation, we are finding it very difficult to adequately describe the technologies we can offer to support the CKEM Program. To provide minimal summary, relevant work, plan, facilities/ equipment, management plan, and SOW data allows enough pages to discuss two to four technologies. However, to provide the same data for our planned submission of eight to ten technologies forces us with the prospect of limiting our technical discussions to a very cursory nature or to unilaterally make a decision not propose some of the technologies. ANSWER: We will not grant an exception to the page limitation. However, we will accept multiple proposals if the vendor has technologies that are in different technology areas. Specifically, if a vendor has a variety of motor technologies, this could be captured in one proposal. In addition to propulsion technologies, if the vendor had guidance and control technologies such as control actuation devices, this could be captured in another proposal. 30. The BAA specifically calls out the FAR Conflict of Interest provision. Does this imply that the prime contractors are prohibited from bidding the BAA? ANSWER: No, the Conflict of Interest provision implies that a potential offeror with a real or potential conflict of interest may prevent the Contracting Officer from considering its proposal, or making an award to the same under this BAA. 31. The BAA states "Cost sharing is encouraged and any cost share must be separately identified in the proposal. Proposals must: (1) Define a representative..." Do these 8 items require addressing only if cost sharing is proposed, or are they required no matter whether cost sharing or not? ANSWER: It is required that the offeror address these 8 items regardless of whether cost sharing is proposed.

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20001010/ASOL007.HTM (W-279 SN5037H6)