A -- MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY FOR MICRO-ELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEMS (MEMS) BASED INERTIAL MEASUREMENT UNITS

Notice Date

February 2, 2001

Contracting Office

Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy St., Arlington, VA 22217-5660

ZIP Code

22217-5660

Solicitation Number

01 -- 008

Response Due

March 26, 2001

Point of Contact

Technical Points of Contact: Mr. Pat Reeves, SPAWAR, e-mail: Reaves@SPAWAR.navy.mil, or Fax: (619)553-5667, and Mr. Charles Wagner, AFL, e-mail: Charles.Wagner@afrl.af.mil, or Fax: (937)656-4420, Contract Negotiator: Toni Cristinzio, ONR 253, (703) 696-8448, e-mail:Cristit@onr.navy.mil

Description

This announcement constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in FAR 6.102(d)(2). The result of this announcement will be one or more contracts/agreements for the development and demonstration of manufacturing processes to enable the production of low cost micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) based inertial measurement units (IMUs) for missiles and munitions. There will be no other formal request for proposals or solicitations regarding this announcement. Interested parties should be alert for any BAA amendments that may be published. REQUIREMENTS: This BAA is soliciting proposal(s) for the development and demonstration of manufacturing technology processes to enable the low-cost production of MEMS-based IMUs for missiles and munitions. The objective of this manufacturing process development effort is to enable IMU suppliers to provide products that meet DoD performance, reliability, and cost requirements. Attainment of this objective should result in the ability to produce low-cost (<$2500), MEMS-based IMUs of tactical grade (I-10 degree/hr gyro drift rates), suitable for multiple DoD weapons systems. Additionally, the IMUs should initially withstand low-to-moderate g-forces, with improvement possible to attainment of "gun-hardened" devices suitable for high-g applications such as projectiles. The offeror shall identify an evolutionary strategy to expand the capability of the IMU to meet both the tactical grade Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) and the projectile markets. The offeror shall identify its existing supplier/user alliances in the proposal or shall identify a strategy to develop alliances during the contract for the purpose of validation of technical results and technology demonstrations. The offeror shall propose a plan for the transfer of technologies/product integration into the systems targeted for insertion and/or demonstration. Potential supplier-user alliances should identify the criteria for selecting insertion opportunities into the optimal set of DoD weapons systems. This includes system level parameters and form/fit/function packaging that can be inserted into multiple weapon systems with little or no rework. The offeror shall specify a systems engineering process, plans for implementing the process, and expected products or demonstration articles over the life of the contract. The systems engineering process would include at a minimum a trade-off analysis capability and requirements tracking from concept to product realization. An example is an Integrated Product/Process Development (IPPD) methodology. The offeror should explain necessary areas of process improvement that are key to achieving the above mentioned program goals and objectives. Current state-of-the-art and baseline capabilities should be thoroughly discussed. Representative opportunities for illustrative purposes include: 1. Optimizing wafer-to-IMU assembly processes and automation; 2. Identifying/developing unique packaging structures; 3. Developing accelerated in-situ and acceptance test methods/procedures; 4. Establishing product assurance and reliability methods/procedures; 5. Developing methodologies & models for validating performance, cost, producibility; and 6. Developing transition tasks and implementation plan(s) to meet customer demonstration/insertion needs. This plan would include which candidate platform(s) the offeror has agreements to test its IMU prototypes with and its strategy to proliferate and transition its IMU prototypes across multiple platforms. The offeror should develop and discuss a candidate list of specific milestones that indicate projected accomplishments and completions in months after contract award (MAC). An example of milestones for illustrative purposes is listed below: 24MAC: Demonstrate a medium precision (10o/hr) MEMS IMU for two different weapon systems; and 48MAC: Demonstrate low cost high precision (1ohr) MEMS IMU inserted in at least one weapon system. DUE DATE: Four (4) paper copies and three (3) electronic copies on CD of the proposals are due no later than 1500 hours (3 pm) on 26 March 2001. E-mail submissions are not acceptable. The proposals should be addressed to the Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington VA 22217-5660, Attention: Toni Cristinzio, Code 253 Room 720. Any proposals received after 1500 hours (3 pm) on 26 March 2001 will not be considered for award. AWARD: One or more awards will be made as a result of this announcement. The Navy reserves the right to select for award all, parts, or none of the responses received, and intends to incrementally fund any resultant award(s). The Navy reserves the right to make awards to other than the lowest cost offerors. The awardee(s) may be required to have or obtain security clearances up to and including the Secret level for work contemplated under this announcement. For proposals submitted by consortia or teams, Articles of Collaboration, which define the interaction and commitment of the proposal partners, must be developed prior to award, but are not required to be delivered with the initial proposal. It is anticipated that the resultant award(s) will cover a four (4) year period. The total Federal funds for this program over the four-year period is anticipated to be $12 million (not including offeror cost share). The award(s) will be based on proposal merit and funding availability. BACKGROUND: Over the past few years there has been a variety of research investments in MEMS technologies. These include both government and industry funded activities, with the primary government funding coming from DARPA. The two government research investment areas that form the basis of this effort are the MicroElectromechanical Sensor Inertial Navigation System (MEMS INS) and the Affordable Multi-Missile Manufacturing (AM3) programs. The results from these two programs, coupled with industry research in inertial measurement units (IMU), provide a clear picture of what is technically feasible and what manufacturing process improvements are required to achieve affordable MEMS IMU products for military applications. The goal of this effort is to achieve a low cost "Common IMU" that can both be (1) used in multiple DoD missile and munitions platforms, and (2) used to meet a wide variety of smaller niche DoD markets. MEMs technologies offer the best opportunity to achieve dramatic cost reductions in rate sensors if significant volume can be generated through identification of performance specifications that fit a significant portion of both current and future Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) platforms. The MEMS INS program is intended to develop silicon-based inertial sensors using processing methods developed in the overall DARPA MEMS technology program, and to integrate them with navigation software to achieve low power, small size, low cost, tactical grade inertial navigation systems. The AM3 program is intended to produce changes in the development and production of tactical missiles. The IMU evaluation element of this program is focused on characterization of the sensor devices for application within the missile systems resident within the companies participating in these programs. Based upon technical progress within government sponsored research efforts, known research efforts within the sensor and missile manufacturing industrial community, and the desire of Navy/Air Force weapons systems program offices to field systems utilizing MEMS, there is a solid need for a Manufacturing Technology effort. Such an effort will ensure that low cost MEMS-based IMU devices can be inserted into multiple defense tactical missile and projectile systems, and that a viable industrial base exists to support the production of MEMS for these applications. EVALUATION CRITERIA: Evaluation of the proposals shall be conducted using the criteria listed below, and shall be based upon best value to the Government, i.e., highest quality and quantity of technical effort at minimum cost. The evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance, as are the subcriteria. (1) TECHNICAL: (a) Merit and soundness of the overall scientific, technical, engineering, and manufacturing approach to meeting objectives and technical requirements; (b) Degree of organization's technological advancement in MEMS IMU component development; (c) Background and experience in IMU development and manufacturing; (d) Experience in using MEMS technology for IMU components (e.g. accelerometers, gyros) and integrating MEMS devices into more complex systems; (e) Relevance and applicability of technology development to Navy/Air Force programs; (f) Experience as a DoD IMU supplier in integrating IMUs into missile and munitions systems; (g) Knowledge and experience in product performance assessment and reliability verification methodologies; (h) Quality, experience, and time commitment of personnel directing and assigned to tasks. (2) MANAGEMENT: (a) Merit and soundness of proposed program management and systems engineering plan, including identification of planned deliverables and proposed delivery schedule. (b) Indication of long-term business commitment to the production and application of MEMS-based IMUs; (c) Understanding of the goals and objectives of this project as evidenced by a program milestone chart; (d) Technology insertion plan and selection criteria for insertion opportunities; (e) Adequacy and availability of personnel, facilities, and equipment for successful program execution; (f) Demonstrated ability to execute contracts within time and budget constraints; (g) Knowledge of DOD MANTECH programs and goals. (3) COST: Note: If proposing an Agreement, cost share is required. If proposing a Contract, cost share is preferred but not required. (a) Evidence that the proposal represents a best value usage of DOD funds. Cost considerations should include (if any) industry cost sharing; matching/participating funding by other DoD entities; and provisions of equipment, facilities, or other "in-kind" resources. (b) Evidence of cost realism as regards to the technical and management issues involved in executing the contract. This pertains to the offeror's ability to project costs which are realistic and which indicate whether the nature and scope of the work to be performed is understood. (4) COMMITMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS: (Note: This evaluation factor applies only to offerors who are not small businesses.) (a) The criteria for evaluation of the Offeror's Commitment to Small Business will include: i. The extent to which such firms (i.e., Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone Small Business Concerns, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Businesses and Historically Black Colleges and Universities or Minority Institutions (HBCUs/MIs)) are specifically identified in the proposal; ii. The extent of commitment to use such firms for meaningful work; iii. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform; iv. The realism of the proposal; v. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of both percentage and dollar value of the total acquisition; and vi. The offeror's past performance on utilization of small business concerns in contract performance. Those offerors required to submit Subcontracting Plans (i.e., other than small businesses requesting contract awards) who do not submit subcontracting plans which meet statutory goals should justify the goals they include. b. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted for the contract under the clause entitled "Small Business Subcontracting Plan" (FAR 52-219-9) will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets or exceeds the Congressionally mandated goals of twenty-three percent (23%) for small business concerns (including HUBZone small business concerns), five percent (5%) for small disadvantaged business concerns, five percent (5%) for women-owned small business concerns and three percent (3%) for veteran-owned small business. If these goals cannot be met, a detailed explanation should be included. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: An offeror responding to this Broad Area Announcement shall submit four (4) paper copies and three (3) electronic copies on CD of its proposal in the following format. The proposal shall consist of three (3) parts: Technical and Management (Part I), Cost (Part II) and, (if appropriate) Commitment to Small Business (Part III). Part I of the offeror's proposal shall not exceed 50 pages, excluding resumes and exhibits. Proposals shall be single-spaced, single-sided in 12 pitch, and with a 1 inch margin maintained on top, bottom and both sides of each page. Paper size shall be standard 8.5 inch by 11 inch. Offerors should provide a matrix showing where in their proposal (e.g., page, section and/or paragraph(s) each of the evaluation criteria is addressed. Part I shall consist of: 1. A cover page including title, technical point(s) of contact, administrative point(s) of contact, pertinent phone numbers. 2. Summary page(s) of organizations participating in the proposal outlining related experience, addresses, and points of contact. 3. An organization, management, and systems engineering plan which documents an understanding of the goals and missions of the DOD Manufacturing Technology Programs with a major emphasis on affordability, life-cycle-cost, and technology transitioning to industry. 4. A summary of personnel experience in related technologies. 5. A listing and description of relevant facilities and equipment (and their location) that would be used during the operation of this initiative. 6. Planned use of subcontracting to address potential MANTECH project requirements. 7. Statement regarding existence of, or process to obtain, facility and personnel clearances. 8. Offeror's policies on intellectual property, proprietary rights, patent restrictions, and foreign activities, foreign governments, and foreign students (e.g., ITAR). 9. If contemplating a consortium/team arrangement, offerors shall provide supporting documentation that clearly substantiates the level of commitment of each member. Part II shall not be counted as part of the proposal page limitation of 50 pages and shall contain: 1. A one-to-two page cost summary. 2. Supporting pages, which shall include a detailed breakdown of labor categories, travel costs, and any other direct or indirect costs. 3. Identification of applicable indirect rate proposals, recent audits (DCAA or A-133 audit, Independent Public Audits) and independent reviews of the offeror's accounting, estimates and billing systems (if any). 4. Cost Share Proposed (if applicable. See paragraph (3) Cost of the Evaluation Criteria for applicability). Offerors shall provide details on their proposed cost share approach and cost-sharing goals for technical activities contemplated by the offeror. Offerors shall present sufficient details of their cost share plan to allow government evaluation of the quality and value of the cost sharing arrangement being offered. Describe the process for: identifying sources of cost sharing, soliciting and securing (guaranteeing) cost share contributions, and monitoring and tracking cost sharing. Include provisions for tracking cost share to include details on commitment receipt, obligation/allocation, and application/liquidation of such funds. Offerors shall explain any process controls to be used to insure receipt of cost share prior to project/task execution. Provide the minimum level of cost share to be offered for any/all technical activity contemplated by the offeror. Provide the expected sources of cost share as well as any experience associated with securing cost share for technical or support efforts of a similar nature of that which is proposed under this BAA. Part III (applicable only to contract proposals from entities other than small businesses) will not be counted as part of the proposal page limit of 50 pages. Information must be provided that is sufficient to evaluate the factors shown under the Commitment to Small Business evaluation criterion. Each page in Part I, Part II, and Part III shall be marked with the words "SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION See FAR 3.104". An offeror shall state in its proposal that it is submitted in regard to this BAA, and all proposals shall be accompanied by a completed certification package. The certifications can be accessed on the ONR Home Page (http://www.onr.navy.mil/) (see "Contract Grants" and then "How to Submit a Proposal"). The certification package is entitled "Representations and Certifications for Contracts". MISCELLANEOUS: Proposals may be reviewed as they arrive. The DoD will treat all proposals as competition-sensitive information. Proposals will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with FAR 15.413, applicable law, and DoD/DoN regulations. All evaluators will be government employees. However, the DoD may utilize non-governmental subject matter experts to provide technical assistance to the government evaluators. Any non-governmental experts will be required to sign a non-disclosure statement prior to gaining access to the submitted proposals. DoD may request from all offerors a one-hour presentation on the proposal highlights. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this announcement is not an allowable direct charge to any resulting award. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this solicitation is 54171 (which correspond to the Standard Industrial Classification Code of 8731) with a small business size standard of 500 employees. No portion of this BAA has been set aside for small businesses, HUBZone small business concerns, or historically black college or university or minority university participants; however, their participation is encouraged. Technical questions pertaining to this BAA may be submitted to email address: Reaves@spawar.navy.mil, with a copy to Charles.Wagner@afrl.af.mil, no later than 12:00 noon on 8 March 2001. Contracting questions pertaining to this may be submitted to email address: Cristit@onr.navy.mil no later than 12:00 noon on 8 March 2001.

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010206/ASOL009.HTM (W-033 SN50C5S0)