A -- CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROBLEM SOLVING COMPETITION

U.S. AIR FORCEAIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY MUNITIONS DIRECTORATE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT # MNK-BAA-04-0003 CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROBLEM SOLVING COMPETITION COMPACT ENERGY SOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR MUNITIONS APPLICATIONS Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate Contracting Division, AFRL/MNK, 101 West Eglin Boulevard, Suite 337, Eglin AFB FL 32542-6810 Direct inquiries to Ms. Donna Moran, Grants Officer, +1 (555) 000-0000, ext. 3402, e-mail contact@example.gov or Mr. Mark Fitzgerald, 882-4294, ext. 3414, e-mail contact@example.gov and technical inquiries to Mr. Charles Cottrell +1 (555) 000-0000 ext. 3472, e-mail contact@example.gov TABLE OF CONTENTS: PART I INTRODUCTION PART II RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT PART III CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PART IV CAMPUS CHALLENGE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS PART V PROPOSAL EVALUATION PART VI PROPOSAL PREPARATION PART I INTRODUCTION The Campus Challenge problem solving competition is an effort sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate. The purpose of the competition is to solicit innovative, potentially paradigm-shifting ideas that have the potential, upon maturity, to successfully address specific real-world problems of interest to the Air Force research community. This is accomplished through direct competition, ultimately among a small number of participants. Campus Challenge is a recurring event that could feature a different selection of participants each time. But the charter will always be the same'a challenge to match wits in devising solutions to real problems through the advent of new technology. This is the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) of the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate (AFRL/MN) under the provisions of paragraph 6.102(d)(2) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation that provides for the competitive selection of research proposals. Proposals submitted in response to this BAA that are selected for award are considered to be the results of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of PL 98-369, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. For purposes of this announcement, research is defined to be scientific study and experimentation directed at increasing knowledge and understanding in relation to long term national security needs. It is an enhancement to related exploratory and advanced development programs. PART II RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT COMPACT ENERGY SOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR MUNITIONS APPLICATIONS The Munitions Directorate is developing systems with electrical requirements that can exceed the energy and power densities of known compact power sources, both on a volumetric and gravimetric basis. The Directorate's immediate applications for compact power sources include electric propulsion for loitering platforms including unmanned aerial vehicles, battlefield sensors, autonomous terrestrial micro-robots, and burrowing devices. In these cases, electrical loads are pushing the present capacity of conventional sources that power sensors, artificial intelligence systems, telemetry systems, navigation and guidance systems, propulsion/locomotion systems, fuzing systems, and unconventional payloads. These electrical-based systems are a key element of the Air Force's present and future technological advantage, with weapon and system miniaturization requirements leading the need for more compact - though highly energetic - power sources with discharge durations ranging from tens of minutes to months. Aside from the nominal evolutionary advances in cell chemistries and construction techniques that provide performance gains that are typically tens of percent per design cycle, the Directorate seeks revolutionary advances in net energy performance from a compact power source that can advance the state-of-the-art by a factor of ten when compared to commercial units; the energetic goal is thus to meet either ~5kWhr/kg or ~10kWhr/L including energy source or harvesting mechanism, conversion technique(s) and integrated, intermediate storage if necessary. This is to be evidenced by the experimental performance of a prototype compact power source in the standard size and profile of a commercial cell; examples of such are the "AA," "AAA," "C," or "D" cell sizes. The candidate technologies of interest are not restricted to those normally defined as "batteries" but must nonetheless be totally self-contained in one of these typical cell sizes (or comparable volumes), have a shelf life of at least 5 years, pose no unmanageable health or environmental hazard, be thermally stable under load ranges from short circuit to open circuit, and have a nominal terminal voltage of at least 1VDC and a minimum sustainable terminal current of at least 1mA/cc for the life of the cell. Candidate units with enhanced pulsed-power capabilities, energy harvesting mechanisms and rechargeable characteristics are welcomed. Overall, a tenfold-increase in practical performance as a power source for a munitions-related application is the metric of prime importance. The physical theory, engineering design, anticipated lifetime, energetic performance, operational regime, and environmental impact of the alternative compact power source are among the specific items of interest. The Directorate is not restricting technologies based on estimated costs of production. PART III CAMPUS CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PHASE I LETTERS OF INTENT AND WHITE PAPERS This competition will be divided into two phases. Phase I will culminate with the selection of two white papers. The white paper is the most important factor in the Phase I competition. It should be specific and complete. While it is realized all of the technical factors cannot be addressed in advance, the following should be included and emphasized accordingly: (1) Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Problem requirements. (2) Describe the proposed technical approaches to comply with the requirements specified in the Problem. (3) Particular emphasis should be directed toward identifying existing or emerging technologies that may be used singularly or in combination to provide an innovative means to solve the Problem. All technologies or suggested approaches should be available for advanced or system-level development by the Air Force within 8 to 12 years or sooner after completion of this competition given the investment criteria discussed below under the paragraph entitled PHASE II - PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS, AWARDS, DELIVERY OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS. All participants intending to submit a white paper should first submit a letter of intent with a maximum length of one page to the AFRL/MNK address below not later than 31 Mar 04. The letter should include a one-page synopsis of the proposed idea. These synopses will be reviewed, and no more than ten participants will be asked to submit a follow-up white paper. The criteria for this initial down select will be technological innovation and likelihood of successful system-level development within a nominal 8 to 12 year timeframe, as evaluated by the Air Force. The participants representing the down selected synopses will be informed and invited to attend a meeting to be held at or near Eglin AFB, FL to discuss the problem and the competition requirements in greater detail prior to their submission of white papers. All students (undergraduate or graduate) and faculty of universities are eligible and encouraged to participate. The goal is to produce the best possible solution to the stated problem regardless of who participates. Participation from industry, and various schools and departments within Universities is encouraged. However, only one letter of intent per university or industry should be submitted. The anticipated date for the down selection decision and request for white papers from the ten selected participants is 31 May 04. The anticipated date for submission of white papers to AFRL/MNK is 31 Dec 04. The white paper shall be limited to 10 pages or less, including title page, narrative, tables, figures, and references. The typewritten pages shall be double spaced, and typeset shall be no smaller than 10pt. Standard 8.5"x 11.0" paper shall be used. The title page may be of a thicker stock than the ensuing pages. Ten copies of the white paper shall be submitted; each must bear the signatures, names and departments of those persons who actively participated. No Air Force funding is available for preparation of the white papers. Submit white papers to the following address: Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate Contracting Division, AFRL/MNK, Attn: Ms. Donna Moran or Mr. Mark Fitzgerald, 101 West Eglin Boulevard, Suite 337, Eglin AFB FL 32542-6810. BASIS FOR EVALUATION OF FINAL 10 WHITE PAPERS The evaluation team will be composed of Air Force officers and senior civilians. Each member of this team will have an advanced technical degree at the masters or doctorate level. This team may call upon other Air Force resources for analysis, evaluation, modeling, or costing expertise. Two white papers will be selected as Phase I winners. The two winning white papers will be those that offer the highest probability of solving the Problem according to the weighted evaluation factors presented below. All decisions made by the Air Force evaluation team shall be final. The factors for evaluation of the submitted white papers shall be the following in descending order of importance: (1) Feasibility, (2) Innovation, (3) Cost to Develop, (4) Time to Develop, and (4) Likelihood of Ultimate Adoption/Acceptance by the Air Force munitions research community. All proprietary technology or data, whether in a white paper or in a follow-up development plan, should be clearly labeled. PHASE II - PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS, AWARDS, DELIVERY OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS The two winners of the Phase I white paper competition will be asked to submit proposals describing how they will develop the ideas presented in their respective white papers. The anticipated date for the Government's request for proposals is 28 Feb 05, with proposals from the Phase I winners due 31 Mar 05. Two awards will be issued'one to each Phase I white paper winner. The estimated amount for each award is not less than $150,000. For technical and cost proposal preparation instructions, see Part III. Approximately eight months after receipt of this award, each participant shall deliver a well-structured development plan. These development plans shall, as a minimum, consist of a technology investment roadmap, a development and transition schedule, and a detailed cost estimate. Their purpose shall be to provide the Air Force with a comprehensive strategy whereby the least amount of Government dollars can be best invested to provide all of the technologies necessary to realize the Problem solution within a nominal 8 to 12 year development period. Emphasis shall be placed on developing technologies with a high likelihood of successful transition to Air Force systems at the end of this period. Hence, an investment roadmap that merely recommends extended research grants would be unacceptable. The development plans shall include specific suggestions as to domestic technology vendors. Emphasis should be placed in two areas. The first is the innovative application of emerging technologies to solve the Problem. The second area of emphasis should be placed on describing a transition strategy that moves a technology from laboratory experiment to a systems level power source. These power sources should be at a level of maturity so that the Air Force can begin to integrate them into actual sub-system or prototype demonstrations at the end of the 8-12 year period, if not sooner. The intent is to accomplish this technology development for a potential aggregate investment of between $4M and $6M total over the 8 to 12 year period. The Air Force will reserve the right to accept, reject, or modify some or all of the recommendations presented in either or both development plans and is under no obligation to provide further funds. These development plans shall be delivered to the Munitions Directorate within approximately eight months of the winning participants receiving their Air Force awards. More specific requirements for these development plans shall be forwarded to the two Phase I winners once they have been chosen. The Air Force will ultimately evaluate each of these two development plans and determine an overall (Phase II) competition winner. The overall winner will be notified, and will be presented the "Okaloosa Sword." BASIS FOR EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS The evaluation team will be the same or similar to the one used to evaluate the Phase I white papers. The team will evaluate both Phase II development plans using the following factors in descending order of importance: feasibility, technology maturity, transition strategy, and Air Force investment cost. For purposes of this competition, feasibility is the Air Force assessment of the probability that the proposed solution will be successful. Technology maturity is the Air Force assessment of the degree of investment risk associated with a particular technology. Transition strategy is the step-by-step process that will logically mature a technology to the point that it becomes a viable component within a larger system. Investment cost is the total Air Force funding on a year-to-year basis that would be required to provide the requisite mature technology and to transition it to the point that it could be successfully demonstrated at the integrated system level. The winning development plan will be the one that clearly and simply provides the more credible, preferably less expensive, means to arrive at an effective solution to the problem for one or more munitions applications. It should be noted that tangible, proof-of-concept demonstrations that serve to verify a competitor's overall concept are encouraged as an adjunct to the development plan. These successful technology demonstrations would enhance the Air Force's confidence in the feasibility of a given approach. All decisions made by the Air Force evaluation team shall be final. PART IV TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 31 MAR 04 Letters of Intent to AFRL/MNK 31 MAY 04 Down Select to Ten Participants JUL 04 Industry Day with Ten Participants 31 DEC 04 AFRL/MNK Receives White Papers 28 FEB 05 Request for Proposals Sent to Two White Paper Winners 15 APR 05 Proposals Submitted to AFRL/MNK 30 JUN 05 Awards are Issued 28 FEB 06 Delivery of Development Plans to AFRL/MNK MAR 06 USAF Selects Overall Winner APR 06 USAF Dignitaries present "Okaloosa Sword" to Winner PART V PROPOSAL EVALUATION A. White papers and proposals submitted in response to this BAA will be evaluated as stated in Part III above. No further evaluation criteria will be used in selecting the white papers and proposals. B. It is the policy of AFRL/MN to treat all white papers and proposals as privileged information prior to award, and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. White papers and proposals will be subject to an extensive evaluation by highly qualified scientists from within the Government. The offeror must indicate on the appropriate form any limitation to be placed on disclosure of information contained in the proposal. C. Each white paper and proposal will be evaluated based on the merit and relevance of the specific research proposed as it relates to the Campus Challenge Program, rather than against other white papers and proposals submitted in response to this research requirement. PART VI PROPOSAL PREPARATION A. Each proposal submitted should consist of two volumes. Volume 1 should provide the technical proposal and Volume 2 should address the price/cost portions of the proposal. Volume 1 should be limited to a total of 25 pages, including resumes, charts, figures, tables, etc. Pages in excess of the specified 25 pages will be removed and returned to the offeror before evaluation starts. A page is defined to be one side of an 8.5 x 11-inch piece of paper with information on it. Minimum print size is 10-point type, or 12 pitch. Every proposal shall have at least one copy submitted on disk or via e-mail with a hard copy of the signature page sent via regular mail. Proposals submitted on disk or sent via e-mail are to be submitted on Microsoft Office 97 format. Note: The preferred format for all proposals is via electronic means, whether on disc or via e-mail. The Government intends to work proposals and awards through electronic means. B. The technical portion of the proposal, Volume 1, should contain the following: 1. A title and abstract that includes a concise Statement of Work and basic approaches to be utilized. The Statement of Work should indicate the effort intended for each period of research. 2. A reasonably complete discussion stating the background and objectives of the proposed work, the approaches to be considered, and the resources to be employed. Include also the nature and extent of the anticipated results, and if known, the manner in which the work will contribute to the accomplishment of the agency's mission. 3. The names, brief biographical information, and a list of recent publications of the offeror's key personnel who will be involved in the research. Documentation of previous work or experience of the proposer in the field is especially important. 4. The type of support, if any, the offeror requests of the Munitions Directorate, e.g. facilities, equipment, and materials. 5. The names of federal, state, local agencies or other parties receiving the proposals and/or funding the proposed effort of a similar nature. If none, so state. 6. The identity of facilities, specialized equipment, or other real property to be used for the work, if appropriate for an understanding of the technical work to be conducted. 7. Identify all on-going Government contracts and related past contracts or assistance instruments. Provide a technical point of contact and telephone number for each contract cited. C. The cost portion of the proposal, Volume 2, should contain the following: 1. Proposal Pricing Cover Sheet for total proposal. 2. Summary by cost element and profit for each contract line and sub-line item and for the total proposal. 3. Labor summary for total proposal by categories, rates, and hours. Include an explanation of how labor rates are computed, including base rates and escalation. Show which are level of effort, if applicable. For proposals from universities, the times and amounts to be charged should be identified by academic year and summer effort. 4. Identification of indirect rates by fiscal year and explanation of how established and base to which they apply. 5. Bill of materials detailing items by type, quantity, and unit price, total amount, and source of estimate. Provide vendor quotes. 6. Summary of all travel by destination, purpose, number of people and days, airfare, per diem, car rental, etc. 7. Consultants by name, rate, and number of days or hours. Furnish copy of consulting agreement, and identify prior agreements under which the consultant received the proposed rate. 8. Other direct costs by type, amount, cost per unit and purpose. Specifically identify any costs for printing and publication and computers. 9. Subcontractor's proposal with prime offeror's price/cost analysis of subcontractor's proposal. If subcontractor was not competed, include justification. 10. Forecast of monthly dollar commitments for the proposed contract period. 11. Type of contract or assistance instrument proposed. (We expect most awards to universities and non-profit organizations to be grants.) 12. State whether you are a large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HUBZONE small business, Veteran-owned small business, nonprofit, educational, or historically black college or university. 13. Other terms and conditions, if any. D. Grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions are encouraged. Information regarding these can be found in the AFMC Homepage - site: http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/organizations/HQ-AFMC/PK/pkt/jump.htm. The cost proposal should follow items one (1) through thirteen (13), above, as applicable for assistance instruments. E. Award of a grant to universities or nonprofit institutions, in lieu of a contract, will be considered and will be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties. Teaming arrangements with industry is encouraged. F. Options are discouraged and unpriced options will not be considered for award. G. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this announcement is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract, or any other contract. It is, however, an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost specified in FAR 31.205-18. AFRL/MN contracts with educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and private industry for research in armament technology. A grant, contract, or assistance instrument could be awarded as a result of this BAA, as appropriate. Historically Black colleges and Universities or Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI), small businesses and small disadvantaged businesses are encouraged to participate. For the purpose of this BAA the size standard is 500 employees (NAICS 541710). H. Refer to the "Proprietary Information" and "When and How to Submit" sections of Air Force Material Command Unsolicited Proposal Guide, AFMC Pamphlet 64-101. The AFMC Form 190 is not applicable to BAAs. The guide is available at the following AFMC Publications site: http://www.afmc-mil.wpafb.af.mil/pdl/afmc/. I. Responders should reference the above number (MNK-BAA-04-0003) and BAA topic, "Campus Challenge Problem Solving Competition." White papers and proposals should be sent to Ms. Donna Moran, Grants Officer, +1 (555) 000-0000, ext. 3402, e-mail contact@example.gov or Mr. Mark Fitzgerald, 882-4294, ext. 3414, e-mail contact@example.gov at 101 West Eglin Boulevard, Suite 337, Eglin AFB, FL. 32542-6810. J. A National Agency Check will be required if it necessary for a Contractor to use Government computers.