Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.
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)
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)
PROGRAM RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (PRDA)
NDUSTRY GU DE
AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY
AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY
WRIGHT RESEARCH SITE
WRIGHT RESEARCH SITE
WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB
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
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
1. Sample CBDNet Synopsis ......................................................................... 21
2. BAA/PRDA Process Flow........................................................................... 22
AFMCFARS: Air Force Materiel Command Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement. This and other Federal Acquisition Regulations can be viewed at
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
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)
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
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.
BAA/PRDA PROCESS OVERVIEW
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.
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
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
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
6. Acquisition time is reduced.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
A BAA/PRDA Announcement outline may include the following:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM/OBJECTIVE
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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.
The technical proposal checklist below is provided for your assistance to prepare your technical
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.
PART I - Technical Proposal
Table of Contents
Program schedule (e.g., include tasking milestone chart(s))
Capabilities and Relevant Experience
Related Government/commercial contracts, previous or related IR&D work, etc.
Resumes of Key Personnel
Program Organization Chart(s)
PART II - Offeror Statement of Work
NOTE: PLEASE USE THE DECIMAL NUMBERING SYSTEM ABOVE FOR SOW PROPOSAL
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1.0 - 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
2.0 - Requirements:
(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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS INFORMATION
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.
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:
Primarily awarded to educational or non/profit organizations.
Classified information is usually not involved.
There is no fee or profit.
DOD Grant and Agreement Regulations (DODGARs) does apply.
Substantial involvement between the government and recipient is not required.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
SAMPLE CBDNET SYNOPSIS
CBD Hard copy
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
SUBJECT: A--MULTI SENSOR EXPLOITATION TESTBED (MSET) SYSTEM INTEGRATION
Proposal due date
SOL PRDA No. 98-07-SNK
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
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 email@example.com.*****
BAA/PRDA PROCESS FLOW -- SINGLE STEP PROCESS
EVAL, IF NEEDED
REQUEST (PR) TO
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?