Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 627

DECLARATION re 626 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law PLAINTIFF LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULES 50(b) AND 59 OF THE FED. R. CIV. P. MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law PLAINTIFF LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULES 50(b) AND 59 OF THE FED. R. CIV. P. DECLARATION OF PAUL ANDRE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULES 50(b) AND 59 OF THE FED. R. CIV. P. by Leader Technologies Inc.(a Delaware corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26 PART 1, # 27 Exhibit 26 PART 2, # 28 Exhibit 26 PART 3, # 29 Exhibit 26 PART 4)(Rovner, Philip)

Download PDF
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) AND PROGRAM RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (PRDA) IINDUSTRY GUIIDE NDUSTRY GU DE AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY WRIGHT RESEARCH SITE WRIGHT RESEARCH SITE WRIGHT--PATTERSON AFB WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB May 2001 1 FOREWORD Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) and Program Research and Development Announcements (PRDA) are popular mechanisms for procuring basic and applied research as well as advanced technology development at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). This guide was prepared in an effort to provide industry as well as educational and nonprofit organizations with the important aspects of the BAA/PRDA process. A team of Government professionals who consulted with various Industry representatives prepared it. It is hoped that by better understanding the process, there will be less frustration in the overall proposal preparation. Likewise, better proposals will save time for our Government teams and ease their frustration as well. Additionally, Wright Research Site is fully committed to engaging in electronic commerce aimed towards paperless acquisition. This guide reflects that commitment by including new procedures focused on conducting business electronically to the maximum extent practicable. Keep in mind that this is a guide. While we have tried to thoroughly explain the process, regulatory guidance often requires us to change our procedures. You are encouraged to contact the points of contact, both technical and contracting, listed in the synopsis to obtain the latest information. We share a common goal with industry to provide the best possible research and development efforts to the Air Force. We hope this guide makes it easier to achieve this goal by facilitating the overall BAA/PRDA process, especially for newer and less-established firms. We welcome any comments or suggestions you may have for improving on the contents of this guide. Please address them to Mr. Nicholas Zindorf, Det 1 AFRL/PKC, 2310 8th Street, Area B Building 167 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7607; E-mail nicholas.zindorf@wpafb.af.mil. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ............................................................................................................. i Glossary ............................................................................................................ iii Chapter 1: BAA/PRDA Process Review .......................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Synopsis/Announcement Information .......................................... 4 Chapter 3: Proposal Preparation ..................................................................... 6 Chapter 4: White Paper/Proposal Evaluation .............................................. 12 Chapter 5: Technical and Cost Negotiations ................................................ 14 Chapter 6: Assistance Instruments Information........................................... 17 Chapter 7: Post Award.................................................................................... 20 Attachments 1. Sample CBDNet Synopsis ......................................................................... 21 2. BAA/PRDA Process Flow........................................................................... 22 ii GLOSSARY AFMCFARS: Air Force Materiel Command Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. This and other Federal Acquisition Regulations can be viewed at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFafmca.htm. Assistance Instruments: See Chapter 6 for definition. Commerce Business Daily (CBD): The public notification media by which U.S. Government agencies identify proposed contract actions and contract awards. The CBD publishes a new edition every business day. BAA/PRDA synopses are published in this document (website: http://cbdnet.access.gpo.gov/) and provide a direct link to the Electronic Posting System where the announcement is published in full. Contract Negotiator: Term used interchangeably to include the Contracting Officer or Contract Negotiator. Be advised, however, that only a Contracting Officer is warranted to obligate the Government. Regulations specify several other functions that must be performed by a Contracting Officer. Cooperative Agreement: An assistance instrument in which there will be substantial involvement between the Government and the recipient to perform basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development. A cost-sharing arrangement may be required. Department of Defense Grant and Agreement Regulations (DODGARS): Regulations that pertain strictly to grants and cooperative agreements. DODGARS (http://web7.whs.osd.mil/pdf/32106r/32106r.htm) does not pertain to other transactions. Electronic Posting System (EPS)[now called FedBizOps]: A government-wide electronic posting system that allows government buyers to post notices of procurements directly on the Internet. Click on http://www.eps.gov/pilotGeneralInfo/eps_exec.htm for background information and a description of the program in detail. Interested offerors can view and download notices and solicitations from this site. Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Data (GFP/F/D): Property/ facilities/data owned by the Government that is furnished to a contractor that needs these items to perform the contract. GFP also includes property that a contractor acquires with contract funds during contract performance. Grant: An assistance instrument under which the Government provides assistance to a recipient (college/university/non-profit organization) used for basic or applied research. There is no substantial Government involvement. Other Transactions for Research: An assistance instrument under which the Government provides assistance to a recipient (can be a single contractor or a team of iii contractors) to transfer something of value to the public sector. Substantial Government involvement and 50/50 cost sharing are required. Other Transactions for Prototype under Section 845: A non-contractual instrument used for prototype development relevant to a weapon system or weapon. This type of Other Transaction is for the acquisition of goods and services for the direct benefit of the government where cost sharing is not required Project Engineer (PE): Term used interchangeably to include an AFRL Project Engineer, Project Manager, Program Manager, Scientist, Senior Scientist or Contract Monitor. Individual responsible for overseeing/managing a Science & Technology (S&T) project. PRDA/BAA Announcement: The announcement posted on the Electronic Posting System website http://www.eps.gov/ that sets forth the requirements of the program effort and due date for proposals. The EPS website is linked from our website in Current Contracting Opportunities http://www.wrs.afrl.af.mil/contract/ . Statement of Work (SOW): The document that captures the technical content of the contractual effort and incorporated into the contract. The contract may incorporate portions of the offeror’s technical proposal instead of a formal SOW. Synopsis: An individual BAA/PRDA notice published in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). Can also be used to announce awards, provide information on future contracting actions, etc. Technology Investment Agreement: A class of assistance instruments used to carry out basic, applied and advanced research projects, and the research is to be performed by for-profit firms or by consortia that include for-profit firms. A 50-50 cost sharing arrangement is required. Wright Research Site (WRS): Reference to the geographical location of five Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Technology Directorates: Air Vehicles (VA), Materials (ML), Propulsion (PR), Human Effectiveness (HE) and Sensors (SN) at WrightPatterson AFB. iv CHAPTER 1 BAA/PRDA PROCESS OVERVIEW DEFINITION a. The distinction between a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) and Program Research and Development Announcement (PRDA) is at best subtle or occasionally even transparent. Though the contracting method is likely to be very similar, generally speaking the difference is outlined in bold in the two following paragraphs. Definitions for these types of research are located in DFARS 235.001. b. A BAA is a publication in the Commerce Business Daily and the Electronic Posting System (EPS) of a competitive selection for basic and applied research where the research is not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. A BAA is general in nature identifying areas of research interest, including criteria for selecting proposals, and soliciting the participation of all offerors capable of satisfying the Government's needs. The BAA technique is used when meaningful proposals with varying technical/scientific approaches can be reasonably anticipated. c. A PRDA is a publication in the Commerce Business Daily and the EPS of a requiring activity's interest in new and creative research or development solutions to scientific or engineering problems, with the intent to solicit competitive proposals. A PRDA may be an appropriate contracting method for applied research and advanced technology development that has general application and is not system specific (e.g., not related to the development of a specific weapon system or a specific hardware development effort). The PRDA is an Air Force-developed procedure that pre-dates the BAA and is not used by other agencies. PURPOSE BAA and PRDA techniques will be used to the maximum extent consistent with applicable regulations and procedures. They are not intended to replace existing contracting procedures where a technical requirement can be sufficiently defined for solicitation. BAAs and PRDAs should be considered when the Government desires new and creative solutions to problem statements and/or advances in knowledge, understanding, technology and state-of-the-art. The Government must be able to state its objectives in terms of areas of need or interest rather than specific solutions or outcomes. Development of prototype hardware may be pursued under either technique; however, such development must demonstrate a particular technical approach or solution. It should not be for the purpose of acquiring specific hardware that has already been defined or developed by the Government. a. BAAs: BAAs are used for basic research and applied research in broadly stated areas of scientific study and experimentation directed towards advancing the state of the art. BAAs will not be used for research efforts related to specific weapon systems or hardware development. b. PRDAs: PRDAs are intended for applied research and advanced technology development that has general application and is not system specific (e.g., not related to the development of a specific weapon system or a specific hardware development effort). TRENDS a. Both BAAs and PRDAs are used far more extensively in Science and Technology (S&T) acquisitions than formal Requests for Proposal (RFPs) because of their flexibility. This practice is expected to continue. In addition, the Air Force Materiel Command’s (AFMC) goal for the year 2000 is to have paperless acquisitions. This initiative will introduce a new trend for Wright Research Site (WRS) 1 Contracting of synopsizing in the CBD (both electronic and hard copy) a notice of the announcement. The electronic CBDNet provides an Internet link to the Electronic Posting System (now termed FedBizOpps) website http://www.eps.gov/ where the announcement is posted in full. Consistent with FAR 5.102(a)(7) WRS intends to employ the solicitation process via the electronic medium. b. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) makes awards under BAAs issued by other Government agencies such as Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), etc., provided these agencies follow established BAA guidelines as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). ADVANTAGES OF THE BAA AND PRDA PROCESSES The BAA/PRDA process offers several advantages over other competitive acquisition processes. Advantages include: 1. BAAs/PRDAs encourage creative and unique ideas by giving offerors the flexibility to propose solutions to stated Government technical areas of interest or problems. 2. Offerors may respond to all or part of the areas of interest or problems in the announcement. Offerors should contact the Project Engineer if they are considering proposing to only a part of the announcement requirements. 3. The Government may choose to procure all or part of an offeror’s proposal. The Government also has the flexibility to determine the appropriate instrument (e.g., contract, grant, cooperative agreement, technology investment agreement or other transaction). 4. The offeror defines the Statement of Work (SOW) in accordance with the proposed solution to the Government-stated technical areas of interest or problems. 5. Government technical focal point may communicate with offerors until the technical evaluation is finalized. 6. Acquisition time is reduced. BAA/PRDA PROCESSES a. Open-Ended A BAA or PRDA may be published to allow white papers or proposals to be submitted within a specified period. Initial offers generally are brief descriptive white papers or abstracts, but may also be full technical and cost proposals. Submissions are reviewed/evaluated as received during the period that the solicitation is open. Offerors that submitted white papers may be invited to submit full technical and cost proposals. Some open-ended BAAs/PRDAs allow white papers or proposals at any time during the solicitation period while others may specify incremental due dates during the period the announcement is open. b. Single-Step The single-step process is used to request full technical and cost proposals by a single date published in the CBD announcement. Proposals are evaluated immediately subsequent to receipt of the proposals by the evaluation team. This process is employed most frequently at WRS. c. Two-Step. Under this process, potential offerors are invited to submit brief descriptive white papers/abstracts and a rough order of magnitude (ROM) by a date specified in both the CBD notice and the announcement. The Technical Evaluation Team evaluates these within a specific time period. Offerors that submitted white papers found to be of interest may be requested to submit formal technical and cost proposals by a specified date. Note, however, that any offeror may submit a full proposal even if they were not requested to submit one. All proposals are then evaluated as a group. The two-step 2 process reduces acquisition resources for both the Government and industry. It may be considered when a large number of proposals are anticipated or to determine if further Government interest is warranted. If further interest is not warranted, industry saves unnecessary bid and proposal costs and the Government saves evaluation time Alternatively, the team may decide that offerors not submitting a white paper will not be eligible to receive an award. The requirement to submit a white paper to be eligible for award must have been stated in the announcement. All proposals then are evaluated as a group. d. Oral Presentations The Government may request oral presentations to substitute for, or augment, written information. Use of oral presentations as a substitute for portions of a proposal can be effective in streamlining the selection process. Oral presentations may be particularly useful in communicating capabilities, past performance, work plans or approaches, staff resources, transition plans, and sample tasks. Oral presentations may occur at any time during the BAA/PRDA processes described above. The contractor will find specific information, including procedures, if oral presentations are requested in the announcement. Areas to consider are: time limits, presenters, place and date of presentations, evaluators, documentation requirements, how evaluation factors will be evaluated during the presentations, etc. The following parts of the proposal may be requested in writing: Statement of Work (technical information to be referenced in the proposal); resumes; representations and certifications; cost or price proposals; and signed offer sheet. See FAR 15.102 for further information. COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT a. Laboratory technical personnel may continue to talk directly with offerors on a BAA/PRDA acquisition to resolve questions and provide general program information until a purchase request is received in the contracting office. Direct communications will operate in both directions, but questions on status or the evaluation process often delay the acquisition. The offeror should initiate discussions only when absolutely necessary. The following is prohibited: - Discussion of other offerors' proposals, - Discussion of rating information, and - Proposal revision during technical discussion. b. In addition, questions outside the scope of the technical focal point, such as contract terms and conditions or projected award schedule, should be referred to the Contracting Officer or Contract Negotiator. BAA/PRDA PROCESS FLOW Attachment 2 depicts a BAA or PRDA single-step process. This flowchart is intended to give a general overview of the steps involved in the overall process. Using a different method, such as the open-ended or two-step process could alter the flow somewhat. 3 CHAPTER 2 SYNOPSIS/ANNOUNCEMENT INFORMATION GENERAL Although funding requirements are never secure, AFRL only issues a BAA/PRDA announcement when the Government is reasonably assured that funding will be available at the time of award. A notice is first posted electronically in the CBDNet and EPS and subsequently published in hard copy in the CBD. The notice published in the hard copy CBD represents the official notification to prospective offerors of a potential Air Force acquisition. It constitutes the only notice of the acquisition, and provides the Internet web site address for accessing the actual solicitation information. Attachment #1 to this guide is a sample WRS BAA/PRDA CBD notice. The WRS web page also contains current contracting opportunities and links customers to the EPS website, where the entire announcement is provided. No hard copy of the web announcement will be published/issued/mailed. No solicitation (RFP) will be issued other than what is provided at the specified web site, unless an amendment to the solicitation is issued. For any amendments/revisions made to the BAA/PRDA announcement, a notice will be issued in the CBD which will providing the Internet web site address for accessing the amendment. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. A BAA/PRDA Announcement outline may include the following: 1. ANNOUNCEMENT 2. INTRODUCTION SECTION A: SECTION B: SECTION C: SECTION D: SECTION E: STATEMENT OF PROBLEM/OBJECTIVE AWARD INFORMATION PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS BASIS FOR AWARD OTHER INFORMATION TO OFFERORS 3. ORAL PRESENTATION INSTRUCTIONS 4. TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION MODEL CONTRACT 5. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS 6. CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL) 7. DD FORM 254 b. CBD Notice The sample BAA/PRDA CBD notice, reflected as attachment #1 herein, is printed in the U.S. Government Procurements, Services, A, Research and Development section of the CBD. The CBD announcement provides the purpose of the acquisition and identifies what area(s) of research or what problem(s) need to be solved. It includes technical and contracting points of contact that can provide additional assistance if needed. The CBD notice provides the web site (EPS) for the actual BAA/PRDA announcement for offerors to access. Potential offerors are encouraged to make contact with the listed individuals for possible clarifications via telephone, or in person; written requests should be avoided if possible. The areas discussed below are those that usually generate the most questions from potential offerors. Hopefully, the following paragraphs will clarify the information in the solicitation and answer many potential questions. 4 c. Announcement Revisions Changes to the BAA/PRDA announcement can only be made by publishing a notice of the revision (amendment) in a subsequent CBD notice. The entire amendment is published in EPS. Amendments to an announcement are used to extend proposal due dates or clarify requirements. They may be used to change or modify existing minor technical requirements. A new announcement may be issued and the old one canceled if the requirements change substantially. Offerors should monitor all CBD issues subsequent to the original one, up to the time of the proposal due date. Any notice of any amendment will appear in the same section of the CBD as the original notice. d. Late Proposals The due date for proposals will be specified in the solicitation. As a minimum, offerors will have 45 days to submit a proposal; longer times will be specified, if applicable. The proposal due date is usually firm. Late proposals are only accepted if they comply with the provisions of FAR clause 52.215-1(c)(3). Most WRS announcements specify a proposal due date (Single Step Process). If it allows incremental due dates, the announcement is Open-Ended (see Chapter 1), and proposals may be submitted by the specified increment(s). A proposal due date can only be changed through a formal amendment of the announcement, which is published in a notice of the CBD and on the EPS website. In addition, technical and cost proposals are due on the same date unless noted otherwise in the solicitation. In the Two-Step Process, the late proposal rule may apply to both due dates, (1) the due date for the receipt of the white papers/abstracts, and (2) the due date for the receipt of a formal proposal, but it must be clearly stated in the solicitations for each. e. Multiple Awards. Many announcements result in multiple awards. When applicable, the announcement may specify a government-estimated level of effort anticipated for each contract award. However, to allow for program flexibility, the Government may not provide a level of effort for each award, but may instead indicate the total value of all awards anticipated. Occasionally, however, WRS may award only a part or parts of a proposal rather than acquiring the entire proposal. In those instances, an estimated level of effort or total contract value is not necessarily helpful. f. Source Lists. Due to the nature of the BAA/PRDA process, the WRS contracting office does not prepare a "source list" or "bidders list." Therefore, such a list is not available. Please do not request one. g. Availability of Reference Documents Copies of specifications or Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) cited in the announcement may be obtained at the Department of Defense Single Stock Point for Mil Specs and Standards website: http://www.dodssp.daps.mil/. Their Help Desk phone number is 215-697-6257/6936. Copies of the DOD Index of Specifications and Standards and Acquisition Management Systems and Data Requirements Control List, DOD 5010.12-L, may also be ordered from this website. This site also provides access to several data base systems for DOD-wide standardization document information management and other digital libraries. Another website provides some of the DIDs that are commonly cited in WRS announcements: http://www.mn.afrl.af.mil/public/dids/didshelp.html. 5 CHAPTER 3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION GENERAL a. The technical/cost proposal submitted by an offeror in response to a BAA/PRDA is the only vehicle available to the offeror for receiving consideration for award. The proposal must stand on its own merit; only information provided in the proposal can be used in the evaluation process leading to an award. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities necessary to perform the work proposed. The technical proposal must be accompanied by a cost/price proposal because cost and technical considerations are reviewed simultaneously. b. Proposals containing data that are not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes must include the following statement on their title pages: The proposal or quotation includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal or quotation. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of these data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose these data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use the information contained in these data if they are obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained on sheets (insert page numbers or otherwise identify the sheets). Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal or quotation. c. In an effort to move toward paperless contracting, the cost and technical proposals may be submitted via electronic means on computer disk or CD-ROM. Note, however, that a paper copy of each proposal may also be required to be submitted with the electronic medium. Please refer to the individual announcement instructions. Please note that classified information must NOT be transmitted via e-mail or through the internet; however, if needed or required, classified information on computer disk or CD-ROM must be handled in the same manner as classified paperwork. If proposals are not submitted on computer disk or CD-ROM, they must be submitted in an original and a specified number of copies. Format of the electronic submittals will be specified in the announcement. d. The technical proposal checklist below is provided for your assistance to prepare your technical proposal. Note: Always compare the guide instructions with the announcement instructions as they may be tailored for some projects. Tailoring may differ somewhat from the instructions herein. Should that occur, you should comply with the announcement proposal preparation instructions. PROPOSAL CONTENTS/CHECKLIST PART I - Technical Proposal 6 Cover Page Table of Contents Technical Approach Background/Scope/Program Objectives Program Plan Technical Discussion Program schedule (e.g., include tasking milestone chart(s)) Capabilities and Relevant Experience Related Government/commercial contracts, previous or related IR&D work, etc. Facilities/Resources Resumes of Key Personnel Management Program Organization Chart(s) Management Approach Appendix PART II - Offeror Statement of Work 1.0 2.0 Scope Requirements NOTE: PLEASE USE THE DECIMAL NUMBERING SYSTEM ABOVE FOR SOW PROPOSAL PREPARATION PROPOSAL CONTENTS PART I - Technical Proposal a. Cover Page: The cover page should include the BAA/PRDA title and reference number, name and telephone number for the principal points of contact (both technical and contractual), and any other information that identifies the proposal. The cover page should also contain the proprietary data disclosure statement, if applicable. b. Table of Contents: Include a Table of Contents immediately following the cover page. c. Technical Approach 1. Background/Scope/Program Objectives: The technical proposal must convey an understanding of the problems or limitations of the general technology area and the intended application(s). It should be an overall summary of the technical issues addressed by the offeror’s proposal without merely repeating the requirements. This should provide a vision of what will ultimately be achieved and what solution this effort will produce. 2. Program Plan: The program plan should present an orderly progression of the technical and management efforts to be performed. Upper and lower bounds should be placed on what will be attempted or investigated within the confines of program funding. Some redundancy is inevitable but should be used judiciously to stress key points. 7 3. Technical Discussion: In this section, the offerors should provide technical detail and analysis necessary to support the technical approach they are proposing. They must clearly identify the core of the intended approach. If the offeror has a "new and creative" solution to the problem(s), that solution should be developed and analyzed in this section. The proposal should include a risk assessment of key technical, schedule or cost areas and their potential impact on the program. If subcontractors are proposed, identify why selected and what tasks they are to perform. The offeror shall reference/acknowledge all specified data items (in the contract data requirements list (CDRL)) that were published in the announcement. 4. Program Schedule: The schedule represents the offeror's plan to perform the program tasks in an orderly, timely manner. Provide each major task identified in the SOW as a separate line on the program schedule chart. Provide a schedule of when the data item descriptions (DID) identified in the announcement are to be delivered. d. Capabilities and Relevant Experience 1. Identify related Government/commercial contracts/previous or related IR&D work 2. Identify facilities/resources proposed for the effort 3. Identify and provide resumes of all key personnel (include key subcontract/consultant personnel) e. Management 1. Program Organization: Identify the program organization. Organizational charts may be helpful in showing the structure of the program. 2. Management Approach: Identify management approach to assure contract completion (e.g., meeting schedule, cost and program goals). 3. Appendix(es): Appendices may include technical reports, published papers, and referenced material in support of the offeror’s proposal . Do not provide commercial product advertising brochures. Please be aware that these may be included in the proposal page limitation. The individual announcement may specify that limitation, so it is important to verify this in each BAA/PRDA. PART II - Offeror Statement of Work a. The SOW developed by the offeror and included in the proposal may be incorporated into a binding contract. Developing the SOW as a separate and distinct part of the proposal (Part II) will allow us to incorporate it with minimal time and effort. The proposed SOW must contain a summary description of the technical methodology as well as the task description, but not in so much detail as to make the contract inflexible. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW. Contractors may request copies of our contracts under the Freedom of Information Act; consequently, it is imperative that no company-sensitive information be included in the SOW of the technical proposal. b. The following is offered as a recommended format for the SOW. Begin this section on a new page. Start your SOW at Paragraph 1.0. 1. 1.0 - Scope: This section includes a statement of what the program covers. This should include the technology area to be investigated, objectives/goals, and major milestones for the effort. 2. 2.0 - Requirements: 8 (a) The work effort should be segregated into major tasks and identified in separately numbered paragraphs (similar to the numbered breakdown of these paragraphs). Each numbered major task should delineate by subtask the work to be performed, including any cost-sharing work, and should be sequentially numbered (b) The offeror must identify all reviews and when/where (identify by milestone or task) they will be conducted. (c) Any and all hardware/software to be delivered to the Government as a result of the program must be identified. NOTE: Always compare the guide instructions with the announcement instructions as they may be tailored for some projects. Tailoring may differ somewhat from the instructions herein. Should that occur, you should comply with the announcement instructions. GUIDELINES FOR COST PROPOSALS a. Adequate price competition, as defined in FAR 15.403-(c)(1), is normally anticipated on all BAA/PRDA proposals submitted to DET 1 AFRL/PK. If it is later determined that adequate price competition does not exist, and the threshold for a negotiated contract is expected to exceed $550,000 then the submission of cost or pricing data may be required as defined in FAR 15.401. When cost or pricing data are required, the contracting officer shall require the offeror to submit to the contracting officer (and to have any subcontractor or prospective subcontractor submit to the prime contractor or appropriate subcontractor tier) the following in support of any proposal: The cost or pricing data. (1) A certificate of current cost or pricing data, in the format specified in FAR 15.406-2, certifying that to the best of its knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data were accurate, complete, and current as of the date of agreement on price or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon between the parties that is as close as practicable to the date of agreement on price. (2) If cost or pricing data are requested and submitted by an offeror, but an exception is later found to apply, the data will not be considered cost or pricing data as defined in FAR 15.401 and will not be certified in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. b. Cost Sharing: AFRL policy is that the Government will normally fully fund all R&D efforts with appropriated funds. However, there may be occasions where an offeror might anticipate some commercial or other form of additional benefit from participation in an AFRL project and may be willing to share in the costs of the project. In such cases, the offeror will be requested to verify or otherwise substantiate it and a cost sharing arrangement may be used. If so, a cost-sharing arrangement will be incorporated in the resulting award. No type of federal funding may be used as a source for the contractor's share of the cost. There are certain programs that may require cost sharing, such as Manufacturing Technology, which statutorily require cost sharing. Certain types of assistance instruments, such as Technology Investment Agreements or some Cooperative Agreements, may also require cost sharing. On assistance instruments, however, some type of federal funding, such as IR&D, may be appropriate or acceptable. c. Cost Element Breakdown: Clear, concise and accurate cost proposals reflect the offeror's financial plan for accomplishing the effort contained in the technical proposal. As a part of its cost proposal, 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. All direct costs (labor, material, travel, computer, etc.) as well as labor and overhead rates should be provided by Government Fiscal Year (GFY; i.e., 1 Oct - 30 Sep). Following this narrative is an example of 9 pricing information that may be required. 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. is generally accepted methods of projecting labor expenditures. Purchase order history, catalog prices, vendor quotations, firm negotiated values, engineering estimates, etc. are generally accepted methods of projecting material requirements. The cost element breakdown(s) may include the following. 1. Direct Costs: For direct inputs such as labor hours, material dollars, non-factored travel costs, computer usage, etc. provide supporting documentation, by Government fiscal year, (1 Oct through 30 Sep) such as: Labor Hours by Category of Labor (by GFY year) Labor/Overhead Rates by Category (by GFY year) Overhead/Factor Base Identification Breakout of Travel Computations Kinds, Types, and Detailed Pricing of Materials Amount and Kind of Computer Usage and How Costs Derived Direct labor hours, with their applicable rates, must be broken out by Government fiscal year and the bases used clearly identified. For material costs identify what will be purchased and the basis for the estimated cost, e.g. vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc. 2. Labor and Overhead Rates: The source of labor and overhead rates and all pricing factors should be identified. For instance, if a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) is in existence, that should be noted, along with the Administrative Contracting Officer’s (ACO's) name and telephone number. If the rates are based on current experience in your organization, provide the history base used and clearly identify all escalation, by year, applied to derive the proposed rates. If computer usage is determined by a rate, identify the basis used and rationale used to derive the rate. 3. Material/Equipment: List all material/equipment items with associated costs and advise if the costs are based on vendor quotes, data and/or engineering estimates; provide copies of vendor quotes and/or catalog pricing data. 4. Subcontractor Costs: Submit all subcontractor proposals and analyses with your cost proposal. If the subcontractor will not submit cost and pricing information to the offeror, this information must be submitted directly to the Government for analysis. On all subcontracts and interdivisional transfers, provide the method of selection used to determine the subcontractor and the proposed contract type of each subcontract. An explanation shall be provided if the offeror proposes a different amount than that quoted by the subcontractor. 5. Special Tooling or Test Equipment: When special tooling, and/or test equipment is proposed, attach a brief description of said items and indicate if they are solely for the performance of this particular contract or project and if they are or are not already available in the offeror's existing facilities. Indicate quantities, unit prices, whether items are to be purchased or fabricated, whether items are of a severable nature and the basis of the price. These items may be included under Direct Material in the summary format. 6. Consultants: When consultants are proposed to be used in the performance of the contract, indicate the specific project or area in which such services are to be used. Identify each consultant, number of hours or days to be used and the consultant's 10 rate per hour or day. State the basis of said rate and give your analysis of the acceptability of the consultant's rate. 7. 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. If an offeror takes exceptions to the requirements called out in the announcement (e.g., base support, Government-furnished property (GFP), CDRLs), these should be clearly stated in the cost proposal. 11 CHAPTER 4 WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL EVALUATION WHITE PAPER EVALUATION: If the Two-Step process (see Chapter 1) was used, offerors will be required to submit a white paper or proposal abstract. The evaluation team will evaluate the white paper to determine its overall technical value and interest to the Government. Offerors that submitted white papers found to be of interest may be requested to submit formal technical and cost proposals by a specific date. However, offerors may still submit a full proposal on any white paper even if they were not requested to do so. PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Proposals are evaluated solely on the criteria published in the announcement. The proposal must stand on its own merit as submitted. During the technical evaluation, the Government technical point of contact may initiate a request for technical clarification. Refer to Chapter 1 in the paragraph entitled COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT, for a further explanation of this difference. Once a purchase request has been submitted to the contracting office, all other contacts must be made through the CO or assigned Contract Negotiator. The technical point of contact will refer any contractor's questions to the CO after the request has been initiated. EVALUATION OF ORAL PRESENTATIONS: Offerors may be required to present part or all of their proposals orally (See Chapter 1, in the section entitled Oral Presentations). This would consist of a briefing format where the offeror would present their proposal to the evaluation team. Specific requirements for oral presentations may vary with each announcement so offerors must read the proposal preparation instructions carefully. Submission of presentation slides will normally be required at time of any written proposal documents. Offerors are usually given a specific amount of time to present their proposal and/or a maximum number of charts that they can present. Since communications are allowed during the evaluation, members of the evaluation team will usually be permitted to ask questions. The questions will be for clarifications or further explanation only, as the evaluation team is not allowed to provide feedback (positive or negative) to the offeror during the presentation. The offeror will usually be given the option of answering the question immediately or providing the answer at a later time. The evaluation team will base their evaluation on the content of the presentation and not on the “polish or style” of the presentation. As mentioned in Chapter 1, some written information may still be required and advance copies of the presentation charts are usually required. If presentation slides have also been submitted, no changes, other than administrative, are permitted. Cost proposals are usually not included in the oral presentation. As stated in the paragraph above (PROPOSAL EVALUATION), the entire proposal (written portions and those portions that are orally presented) will be evaluated solely on the criteria published in the announcement and the proposal must stand on its own merit as presented/submitted. 12 TECHNICAL CLASSIFICATIONS: The technical evaluation will classify proposals into three categories as required by AFMC FAR Supplement 5335.016-90(d.2). See AFMC FAR Supplement 5335.016-90(d.2) for definitions of the categories. AWARDS: a. Multiple Awards and Flexibility in Awards made: Under the BAA/PRDA method, multiple awards are generally made based on the quality of the proposals and availability of funding. Occasionally, the AF may be interested in buying only a certain portion (or portions) of a proposal. The BAA/PRDA method provides the flexibility to make an award for only those portions or tasks of the proposal that are of interest to the Government. You will be notified in writing if the Government intends on making an award based on your proposal. The notification will indicate if all or only portions of your proposal will be included in the award. b. Sequence of Awards: In most BAAs/PRDAs, awards are usually made to Category I proposals prior to awards being made to any Category II proposals. However, because of the uniqueness of the BAA/PRDA evaluation process, it may be the case that while your overall proposal may be ranked in Category II (or even Category III) a certain part of the proposal may be ranked Category I or II. In this case the flexibility of the BAA/PRDA process (mentioned in paragraph a.) will allow the Government to make an award for that portion of your proposal that is of high interest to the Government. It may also be the case that another division of the laboratory or even another agency may be interested in your proposed approach (or a portion of the proposal) and provide funds to make an award for your effort. Once again, the flexibility of this process allows us to make awards in these instances. In fact, the BAA/PRDA notification letter to Category I and II offerors states; "If additional funds become available and you are considered for an additional award, you will be contacted to confirm your continued interest and to discuss the currency of your proposal”. Category III proposals, with the exception of certain parts of the proposal (as described above) essentially have no chance for award. USE OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS FOR EVALUATION: All BAA/PRDA proposals are evaluated by Government personnel or as otherwise specified in the announcement. In some cases, when the necessary expertise cannot be found within the Government, outside consultants may be included on the evaluation team. This will be indicated in the announcement. 13 CHAPTER 5 TECHNICAL AND COST NEGOTIATIONS NOTIFICATION OF SELECTION a. Type of Arrangement: The period between selection of the proposal(s) and award(s) requires a coordinated effort among WRS technical and contracting personnel. The team works to award the best possible cost and technical arrangement. The contracting officer works with the other team members to determine the appropriate award vehicle and pricing arrangement. Choices include contracts or assistance instruments (grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements and other transactions). Information concerning these types of arrangements is available from the contracting officer. b. Notification: Once the evaluations are completed, the offerors selected for negotiation are notified. The Government negotiator may verbally notify those offerors of their selection and discuss any further actions they must take. This telephone conversation will be confirmed in writing. In lieu of a telephone call, the negotiator may send a letter notifying those offerors whose proposal was selected for negotiation. The letter will include further instructions, a model contract/instrument, and a set of Representations and Certifications (contract only) that must be completed by the offeror. The model contract/instrument provides the basis for negotiations on all award requirements, terms, and conditions. If the offeror takes exception to any requirements, these must be specifically identified in the reply to the negotiator. The reply must include the completed Representations and Certifications and all information required by the Government. c. Model Contract: If the posted announcement contains a model contract, one will not be forwarded with the notification letter. If any clause changes are affected, the Government negotiator will identify them to the offeror. The offeror should within its initial proposal submittal address any exceptions to terms and conditions of the model that was posted on the web. d. RDSS/C: If the determination is to negotiate a contract, the contracting officer (CO) must also consider whether to award a contract using the Research and Development Streamlined Solicitations/Contract (RDSS/C) format. Information on RDSS/C can be found on http://www.rdss.osd.mil/. This format includes clauses only at the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Department of Defense FAR (DFARS) level, except for a small set of local procedures, such as access to Air Force installations, or base support requirements. There are several factors the CO must consider, such as the type contract, multiple unique clauses, etc. e. Updated Price Proposal/Information: The notification letter may instruct the offeror to respond with either an updated price proposal or additional pricing information that should accompany it. An offeror also may elect to update a proposal to reflect current costs. The offeror is required to submit information on only those elements that have changed from the original proposal. A new complete cost proposal is not required. f. Technical Proposal Changes: Normally, if the Government technical evaluators need any clarifications, the Project Engineer or CO/Negotiator will contact the offeror before completion of the evaluation and issuance of the notification letter. However, a proposal may be selected for negotiations, although additional technical data is still required. If this occurs, the Government negotiator will request any technical documentation needed. g. Buying Part Versus All: Normally, an entire proposal effort is purchased; however, a WRS Technology Directorate (TD) will sometimes be interested in acquiring part of a proposal. This is one 14 reason the announcement proposal instructions require offerors to write a technical SOW in the form of separate tasks. It facilitates evaluation, provides an easy way to select the desired tasks, and facilitates cost trackability by task. If a WRS TD decides to buy only part of a proposal, the notification letter may request the offeror to revise the price proposal to reflect only what will be purchased. h. Clearance Review: After the Government has received all the information and documentation requested by the announcement, the Government will evaluate that information. The Government negotiator will obtain offeror rate information from the contract administration or Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office in order to develop a Government price negotiation position. The Government negotiator will also develop the Government position on any other issues subject to negotiation (e.g., SOW, technical considerations, terms and conditions, etc.). This Government position is then provided to the CO for clearance review and, depending on the value of the proposed effort, forwarded to a Clearance Approval Authority (CAA). After review, the CAA approves the clearance and authorizes the negotiator to begin negotiations. The Government negotiator then contacts the offeror to begin negotiations. NEGOTIATIONS a. Technical: Any unresolved technical issues, such as the SOW, will normally be negotiated first. Typically, negotiations involve specific language issues or determining Government needs versus effort proposed. In most cases, the negotiator will request the offeror's SOW once the technical tasks or issues are agreed upon. It is important to resolve these matters as quickly as possible to avoid numerous iterations of the SOW by both the offeror and the Government. Most of these negotiations are conducted via telephone and supplemented by either telefax or E-mail. If many complex issues arise, the Government negotiator may request face-to-face meetings to resolve them. b. Terms and Conditions: Any exceptions, changes, or additions to the model contract/instrument should be clearly identified and justification should be provided for each. Some may affect pricing or technical considerations (e.g., limited and restricted rights, licensing agreements, or royalties) and should normally be resolved before negotiating cost and fee/price. If the RDSS/C format is determined the best to use, there will likely be few, if any, exceptions allowable to the clauses. c. Cost and fee (if applicable)/Price should be negotiated last. If rates, factors, or other cost elements change during the course of negotiations, the Government negotiator must be informed as quickly as possible to preclude any delays. The offeror may be asked to document these changes. To expedite negotiations, this information should be sent via telefax if it is not too voluminous. The great majority of BAA/PRDA actions will likely result in adequate price competition based on the FAR criteria The contracting officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of those offered prices. The analytical techniques and procedures employed mean to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable. The complexity and circumstances of each acquisition will determine the level of detail of the analysis required. FAR 15.404-1(d) requires that cost realism analysis be used on all cost reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance of the offeror. That cost may not necessarily coincide with the offeror’s. Additionally, the government also performs a risk assessment. In that regard, the assessed risk should be commensurate with the fee. If the proposed and government assessed fee differ, then fee, like cost, will be negotiated. d. Early Effective Date: Occasionally, circumstances arise within a peculiar program that may result in the offeror requesting an early effective date. An early effective date involves an offeror agreeing or requesting to start work on an award after the successful conclusion of negotiations, but without issuance of a signed award. The offeror assumes all risk in this situation. AFMC FAR Supplement 5304.190 requires that if there is no contract, all incurred costs shall be at the offeror's risk and not allowable on any Government contract. The offeror must weigh the benefit of starting an effort with an early effective date against the possibility that a contract will not be awarded. If the Government agrees to an early effective date, the CO will confirm the negotiated date in writing along with the provision of total cost risk assumption in the event that no award is issued. When the award is forwarded for signature, the early date the parties agreed to will be placed in the "Effective Date" block of the contract, 15 which acknowledges allowability of the costs incurred prior to the offeror and CO signatures reflected on the document. Otherwise, the effective date is the mailing date. On assistance instruments, recognition of some pre-award costs may be acceptable and negotiated with the grants officer; however, costs which pre-date the announcement cannot be recognized. e. Agreement: Once negotiations have been concluded, the Government negotiator will ask the offeror to confirm the negotiations in writing. The confirmation should include the cost and fee or price, and any terms and conditions agreed to (e.g., phase cost and fee, SOW changes, contract clause or instrument article exceptions, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, etc.). For an effort where the contracting officer determines there was not adequate price competition, if the total price of the contract reaches the regulatory threshold, the offeror must furnish to the Government a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data as soon as possible following negotiations. While the offeror prepares this documentation, the Government negotiator initiates the contract preparation process. f. Document and File Preparation: Once negotiations have successfully concluded, the Government negotiator begins to prepare the document and contract file for award. The file and document are submitted to the government legal office for their review. g. Offeror Signature: Often the negotiator may submit the contract for legal review and contractor signature simultaneously. In this case the negotiator may ask the contractor to withhold signature until completion of that review. Any exceptions taken should be immediately brought to the attention of the Government negotiator via telephone for resolution prior to signing and forwarding the document. Without this initial contact, signing the document contingent upon making any excepted changes will needlessly cause delay of the award, particularly if it is a condition that the Government finds unacceptable. Any changes agreed to will be reflected in the final document. h. CO Signature and Distribution: After the contractor has signed and returned the document, the CO signs the contract and the document is distributed. If it exceeds five million dollars, by regulation the CO must wait three days for public announcement of the award before distribution can be made. 16 CHAPTER 6 ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS INFORMATION BACKGROUND An award may be made from a BAA or PRDA announcement in the form of a grant, cooperative agreement, TIA or other transaction rather than a contract. These are known as "Assistance Instruments." Assistance Instruments (AI) are appropriate when the goal of the acquisition is to provide assistance by transferring a thing of value (such as money or government facilities) to accomplish a public purpose. On the other hand, a FAR contract is usually more appropriate when the goal of the acquisition is the purchase of goods or services for the direct benefit of the government. An AI, while legally termed a contract, is not subject to FAR. There are three basic kinds of AI's: (1) Grants, (2) Cooperative Agreements (CA) and (3) Other Transactions (OT) for Research. There is a new, very flexible class of agreements called Technology Investment Agreements (TIAs) that may be either a CA or OT, depending on the patent language contained in the document. GENERAL AI's differ from contracts in that they are usually more streamlined and less complex. AIs establish a “partnership” between the government and the recipient rather than a “buyer/seller” relationship that is common with a FAR contract. A grant does not require substantial Government involvement, where a CA or OT for research does require substantial Government involvement. Substantial Government involvement is defined as involvement, of a technical nature, over and above the normal program management functions. AI's are similar to contracts in that they both require basic cost and technical proposals (including the requirement for a proposed SOW) as well as negotiation and agreement on terms and conditions. They differ in that agreement is reached on an estimated budget rather than a fair and reasonable price. The DOD Grant and Agreement Regulations (DODGARs) is the guidance for grants and cooperative agreements. TIAs and other transactions are governed by separate DDR&E issued guidance. The web site for the DODGARs is http://web7.whs.osd.mil/pdf/32106r/32106r.htm. This web site also provides guidance and directions on Department-wide policies and procedures applicable to the award and administration of DOD grants, cooperative agreements and other transactions for research. Another web site that may be helpful on AI information includes http://www.wrs.afrl.af.mil/contract/grants.htm. WHEN A GRANT IS AWARDED Grants are normally awarded for basic and applied research efforts. They are intended to be used when the end objective is to advance the state of knowledge in an area of science or technology; to find a solution to a specific problem; or to achieve improved performance or reduce cost where no specific end result or product, other than documentation, is required. With a grant, there is not substantial involvement required between the government and the recipient. Any hardware involved would be for demonstration or proof-of-principle purposes only. The award of a grant must meet several other requirements in addition to the above. A grant must provide to the Government, as a minimum, a paid up license and march-in rights in patents. The following characteristics apply to a grant award: a. Primarily awarded to educational or non/profit organizations. b. Classified information is usually not involved. c. There is no fee or profit. d. DOD Grant and Agreement Regulations (DODGARs) does apply. e. Substantial involvement between the government and recipient is not required. 17 f. Not subject to the terms of a procurement contract. WHEN A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT IS AWARDED CA's are normally awarded for basic research, applied research, or advanced research or development efforts. A CA will require substantial involvement between the Government and the Recipient. A costsharing arrangement may be required. A CA must provide to the Government a paid up license and march-in rights in patents. The following characteristics apply to a CA award: a. Used when a contract and grant has been determined inappropriate. b. Substantial involvement between the government and recipient is required. c. Paid up license and march-in rights in patents must be obtained. Government Purpose Rights in Data usually is obtained. d. There is no profit/fee. f. Cost-share may be required and it may consist of other than cash; IR&D cost sharing allowable. g. Not subject to the terms of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. h. DODGARs does apply. WHEN AN OTHER TRANSACTION IS AWARDED An OT for research is used when it has been determined that a contract, grant, or CA is not appropriate. OT's are undefined legal instruments. An OT created under 10 U.S.C 2371 may only be used for purposes specifically authorized by law such as for basic, applied and advanced research. A 50/50 costshare is required unless waived. The Government does not require paid up license and march-in rights in patents. An OT will require substantial involvement between the Government and the Recipient. The following characteristics apply to an OT for research award: a. Paid up license and march-in rights in patents not required. b. 50/50 cost sharing is required unless waived. c. Not subject to the terms of a procurement contract. d. DODGARs does not apply to OT's. e. Substantial involvement between the government and recipient is required. WHEN A TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT (TIA) IS AWARDED A TIA is a class of assistance instrument that may be either a CA or OT depending on the patent language included in the agreement. This instrument is used for stimulation or support of basic, applied, and advanced research, when it is appropriate to use assistance instruments and the research is to be performed by a for-profit firm or a consortia that includes for-profit firms, particularly firms that traditionally do not do business with the government. TIAs allow for flexibility in a number of areas that are often barriers to participation by firms that normally do not do business with the government, including standards for financial management systems, cost principles, and rights to technical data and computer software. The following characteristics apply to a TIA: a. Recipient must include a for-profit company. 18 b. Used when a contract and grant has been determined inappropriate c. 50/50 cost share required unless waived. d. Paid up license and march-in rights in patents may be required if TIA is determined to be a CA. Not required if TIA is determined to be an OT for research. e. There is no profit/fee. f. Recipient may be a consortium (made up of multiple firms teaming together) that includes a for-profit firm. g. More flexibility in reporting requirements and payment procedures may be negotiated. Payment may be made based on completion of technical milestones. h. DDR&E guidance applies. i. Substantial involvement between the government and recipient expected. MODEL DOCUMENT AND NEGOTIATIONS After determining that an AI is the proper vehicle for award and upon selection of the proper type of AI, a model document will be issued to the recipient for review. The recipient should disseminate the model document to all recipient team members, if a consortium arrangement is applicable, for review. The recipient may be asked to provide back up cost information that substantiates the estimated budget for the award and gives clear insight into the costs shared by each side. Therefore, a budget proposal for the total program is required that provides a cost breakout of all recipient team members and/or subcontractors, as applicable. Fact-finding will usually be necessary to allow the negotiator to obtain the necessary information to evaluate the reasonableness of the costs proposed as well as the reasonableness or any proposed cost share. Negotiations should involve all the team members, the recipient team and government team, in order to communicate and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible regarding budget and other terms and conditions. OT FOR PROTOTYPE CREATED UNDER SECTION 845 OF PL 103-160 The use of an Other Transaction (OT) for a prototype project was authorized by Section 845 of PL 103160. This use of an OT is not considered an assistance instrument but rather an acquisition instrument. It is used when there is prototype development involved relevant to a major weapon or weapon system. 19 CHAPTER 7 POST AWARD LETTER NOTIFICATION The CO will notify Offerors whose proposals have not been selected for an award as soon as possible. This notification will be via a letter. If a proposal is acceptable for award (Category I or II) but sufficient funds are not currently available for an award, the offeror will be notified of this; however, the CO will also request that the proposal be available for possible future negotiation and award if funds become available. CBD NOTICE A notice of all awards made in connection with BAAs and PRDAs will be published in the CBD unless exempted by regulation. PRE AWARD DEBRIEFINGS When a proposal is not selected for award, an offeror may submit a written request for a debriefing of the evaluation results, prior to award, within three days after receiving notification of non-selection in the competition. See FAR 15.505(a). WRS desire is that the debriefing be relatively informal, and be accomplished either at Wright-Patterson AFB or by telephone/teleconference. POST AWARD DEBRIEFINGS If an offeror not selected for award was not provided a pre-award notification and desires a debriefing, the offeror may request one within 3 days after the date on which that offeror has received a post award notification of contract award in accordance with FAR 15.503(b). See FAR 15.506. PROPOSAL RETENTION If a proposal is selected for award, the Government will retain several copies of it for reference purposes. The Government will normally destroy all but one copy of unsuccessful proposals; this copy will be retained as part of the official contract file. If proposals are sent on a floppy disc or compact disc, these may be returned to the offeror. FINAL REPORT After award, all offerors who submitted a proposal may submit a written request to the WRS Technology Directorate office to receive a copy of the final technical report resulting from the BAA or PRDA award(s). 20 SAMPLE CBDNET SYNOPSIS Internet CBD issue date CBD Hard copy publication date Commerce Business Daily: Posted in CBDNet on August 27, 1998] [Printed Issue Date: August 31, 1998] From the Commerce Business Daily Online via GPO Access [cbdnet.access.gpo.gov] SUBJECT: A--MULTI SENSOR EXPLOITATION TESTBED (MSET) SYSTEM INTEGRATION Proposal due date SOL PRDA No. 98-07-SNK DUE 013000 POC Contact Amy Claire, Contract Negotiator, (937) 255-2902, or Vicki A. Fry, Contracting Officer, (937) 255-2902 DESC: Air Force Research Laboratory, Sensors Directorate, Sensor Automatic Target Recognition Technology Division (AFRL/SNA) solicits research proposals for Multi-Sensor Exploitation Testbed (MSET) System Integration. The purpose of this effort is to develop an engineering prototype of a multi-sensor exploitation system that (1) provides a semi-automated capability to analyze and exploit multi-spectral and hyper-spectral (MSI/HSI) imagery, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery, and foliage penetration (FOPEN) SAR imagery either individually or in combination and (2) can be used to evaluate and demonstrate the operational utility of using multi-sensor imagery to aid an image analyst in the detection and identification of ground targets of interest. EPS link to PRDA Interested offerors may view and/or download the full Program announcement Research and Development Announcement (PRDA) solicitation number 98-07-SNK, by accessing the Electronic Posting System at http://www.eps.gov/. Proposals in response to this PRDA must be received by 30Jan00 3:00 Eastern Daylight time, addressed to the attention of Amy Claire, AFRL/SNKR, Building 7, Area B, 2530 C Street, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-7607. Direct questions to the Contracting point of contact: Amy Claire, AFRL/SNKR, 937-255-2902, Fax (937) 255-3985, e-mail claireab@sensors.wpafb.af.mil.***** Contracting POC E-mail address Attachment #1 21 BAA/PRDA PROCESS FLOW -- SINGLE STEP PROCESS START CBD/EPS ANNOUNCEMENT PUBLISHED OFFEROR'S TECHNICAL & COST PROPOSALS RECEIVED MODEL AWARD FORWARDED TO SELECTEE REVISED OR UPDATED COST PROPOSAL FROM SELECTEE NEGOTIATIONS COMPLETED LEGAL REVIEW, IF REQUIRED Attachment #2 GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMPLETE UPDATED TECH EVAL, IF NEEDED SELECTEE SIGNS AND RETURNS AWARD DOCUMENT PRE-AWARD NOTIFICATION TO ALL OFFERORS PURCHASE REQUEST (PR) TO CONTRACTING CLEARANCE REVIEW REQUESTED CLEARANCE REVIEW APPROVED AWARD MAILED END

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?