AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY MUNITIONS DIRECTORATE

SEEKER INTEGRATED TARGET ENDGAME SENSOR (SITES)

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)
MNK-BAA-07-0003
A--INTRODUCTION:
The Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate, Fuzes Branch (AFRL/MNMF) is
interested in receiving white papers for the Seeker Integrated Target Endgame Sensor (SITES)
Program under this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) MNK-BAA-07-0003. It is anticipated
approximately two of the White Papers may be selected for further consideration, and their
originators may subsequently be requested to submit formal written technical and cost
proposals, with the intent of negotiating approximately two contracts for the SITES Program,
Task 1. Upon completion of Task 1, approximately one contractor may subsequently be
requested to provide an updated technical and cost proposal, with the intent of negotiating
approximately one follow-on task for the SITES Program, namely Task 2. SITES serves as a
risk reduction program for guidance integrated fuze technology development being initiated by
AFRL/MN to enable the capabilities envisioned under the Air Dominance Integrating Concept
(ADIC). The goal of the ADIC is to develop the technologies needed for a next-generation,
dual-role munition capability such as the Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM)
concept to gain total control of the airspace, allowing friendly air assets to operate freely without
fear of attack. This is being accomplished by focusing on the technical challenges of detecting,
identifying, engaging, and providing an aimpoint for directional warhead fuzing to defeat broad
classes of airborne threats and a limited set of ground-based enemy air defense targets before
being detected/defeated. Targets for the ADIC include adversary fixed wing aircraft, rotorcraft,
unmanned air vehicles, cruise missiles, and active integrated air defense systems (Suppression
of Enemy Air Defense/Destruction of Enemy Air Defense SEAD/DEAD). ADIC supports Global
Strike Concepts of Operations (CONOPS) (Anti-Access), Global Persistent Attack CONOPS,
and Homeland Security CONOPS by providing a single missile for use against extremely agile
air targets and SEAD/DEAD ground targets. This missile will provide a first-look, first-shot, firstkill capability, greater precision, and an expanded target set for both within-visual-range and
beyond-visual-range engagements. The challenge in the SITES program is to design a compact
and robust suite of guidance integrated fuzing technologies that will integrate into a low-cost
solution for a future JDRADM seeker concept.
B--REQUIREMENTS:
(1)
Program Objective: The primary objective of this effort is to assess and demonstrate
the viability of technology that will eliminate the need for a conventional Target Detection
Device (TDD) in guided tactical air-launched missiles. The SITES technology is intended to
satisfy the precision fuzing portion of total lethality performance needs in lieu of a conventional,
separate Target Detection Device (TDD). Potential solutions to this technology need to include,
but are not limited to:
a) A missile seeker with sufficient precision during the endgame to provide a warhead aimpoint
b) An alternate mode of operation of the seeker to accomplish the fuzing function
c) A complementary, integrated hardware & software suite
The Government intends to develop and demonstrate, through modeling, simulation and testing
(laboratory & open air), one or more approaches to Guidance Integrated Fuzing (GIF) for the
next generation air-launched tactical missile system. This technology will provide an integrated
target detection and fuzing aimpoint function for advanced directional ordnance concepts
envisioned for the next generation of air-launched guided munitions such as JDRADM. The
successful offerors would design, develop, & demonstrate an Integrated Sensor Technology
that:

1 DRAFT

a. Demonstrates endgame target sensing technology with sufficient speed and resolution to
provide an aimpoint for current and planned future directional warheads used in air-launched
guided weapons
b. Enables Guidance Integrated Fuzing -- Optimal, Synergistic Sharing of Target Sensing
Resources Between the Weapon Guidance System and the Fuzing Function.
Specifically, air vehicle guidance integrated fuzing technologies to improve munitions systems
lethality will be identified, analysis will be conducted to show the benefit of the technology at a
weapon system performance level, and a development plan will be executed to demonstrate the
feasibility of this technology as a risk reduction for future JDRADM seeker integration. An
emphasis on enhanced endgame lethality performance is required through directional warhead
employment, however the technologies proposed may also be applicable to improvements
during missile terminal guidance tracking in conjunction with fuze aimpoint generation. The
system level goal is a dual-role missile that can achieve a successful terminal engagement and
endgame lethality in the air-to-air and air-to-ground scenarios and specific requirements
contained in Annex 1 of this BAA. Offerors should forward their request for Annex 1 of this BAA
to the Government in strict accordance with the requirements of Section C, item (6). The
technology should be focused on a notional JDRADM missile with a maximum diameter of 7
inches and length of 144 inches. It is anticipated that the vendors will make use of surrogate
seeker hardware where possible. The development of missile seeker, kinematic and energetics
performance technologies are not a part of this contract.
(2) Technical Requirements
For specific technical requirements, see ANNEX 1. (Reference paragraph C(6), below)
(3) Program Tasking:
Task Order 0001 Concept Design & Refinement: The effort commences with the issuance of
Task Order (TO) 0001. Under Task Order 0001, the contractor shall propose a Concept Design
& Refinement and perform a Feasibility Study, where the contractor shall:
Develop & refine conceptual design
Perform preliminary engineering design trades and system level effectiveness analyses
to demonstrate the merit of the concept
Develop a baseline performance metric and analyze SITES performance
Demonstrate feasibility of Concept
Develop a Master Test Plan for the remaining program
Document findings in a Task 1 technical report
Deliverables: Technical Data, Master Test Plan & Final Report
Performance improvements will be analyzed against a baseline missile system approved by the
sponsor. The design trade studies and analyses will be documented in a Task Order 0001
technical report. The contractor shall also develop a Master Test Plan for the remainder of the
program (Task Order 0002). The Government anticipates Task Order 0002 will be awarded to
only one contractor, at the conclusion of Task Order 0001.
Task Order TO 0002 (Optional). The Government envisions TO 0002 proceeding in two parts,
Part 2a and Part 2b, with the following requirements:
Task 2a: Detailed Design/Lab Demonstration Test, 15 months
Demonstrate the merit of the concept through a combination of detailed analyses,
algorithm development, digital simulation and/or component level tests IAW the Master
Test Plan
Conduct design spiral(s), introducing materials and technologies as appropriate
Culminates in Interim Design Review

2 DRAFT

Deliverables: Breadboard Hardware, Software Algorithms & Simulation Models, Lab

Test Data & Interim Report
Technical results of Task Order 0001 will determine if Task Order 0002 (TO 0002) will be
awarded. Upon award of TO 0002, the contractor shall proceed with Task Order 0002 (Part
2a) which consists of: Detailed Design & Laboratory Demonstration Test, refining the
Master Test Plan, demonstration of the merit of the concept through a combination of
detailed analyses, algorithm development, modeling and simulation, and/or component level
tests detailed in the Master Test Plan. Task Order 0002 (Part 2a) includes conducting
sufficient design spirals as appropriate for design optimization.

Task 2b: Fabrication & Test, 18 months

Perform final design iteration(s) and demonstrate performance via lab and limited field
testing IAW the Master Test Plan
Update & finalize the validation of concept models using lab & field test data
Culminates in Final Design Review
Deliverables: Brassboard Hardware, Software Algorithms & Simulation Models, Field
Test Data & Final Report
Document results in a Final Technical Report
Technical results of Task Order 0002 (Part 2a) will determine if Task Order 0002 (Part 2b) will
be pursued. In TO 0002 (Part 2b), the contractor shall perform a final design iteration as
required, brassboard fabrication, integration and demonstration via laboratory and limited field
testing. TO 0002 (Part 2b), also includes updating and finalizing the validation of concept
models using contractors collected field test data.
(4) Test Support: The contractor shall be responsible for all test plans necessary for the
maturation and demonstration of the hardware and software products to be tested. Contractorgenerated test plans, as approved by the Government, will become schedule milestones. For
tests being conducted at Government facilities, the contractor shall be responsible for providing
technical support, analysis, data and test planning support to the identified responsible
Government test organization. The contractor shall provide test support to include the following:
support of test planning meetings; test setup advice; test article build up; checkout; installation
of hardware; instrumentation package support; required documentation for testing; identification
of risk mitigation actions; record test setup; data collection for evaluation of results; post-test
analysis and test result documentation.
(5) Safety Reviews: The contractor shall support all Government safety reviews, including, but
not limited to, documentation and manpower.
(6) Management: The contractor shall be responsible for meeting all requirements of this
contract, including but not limited to, cost, technical, schedule, security, and subcontractor
management. The contractor shall communicate the technical and programmatic status through
Data Requirements submissions discussed in Section/paragraph B(7) and scheduled meetings
discussed in Section/paragraph B(8). In addition to quarterly reviews and formal design
reviews, informal program status interchanges (such as weekly teleconferences) are
encouraged. The contractor shall conduct a technical risk assessment and management
program throughout the life of the contract, and manage program schedule and cost of contract.
The Government anticipates that the successful offeror(s) will use Earned Value Management
tools and techniques during the execution of this contract.
(7) Data Requirements: The following data submittals are expected to be required for each
contract awarded. Requirement Title and Data Item Description (DID) are provided as follows:
(a) Monthly status reports: DI-MGMT-80368/T.

3 DRAFT

(b) Contract Work Breakdown Structure Cost/Schedule Breakdown Structure: DI-MGMT8133B/T. Contractor format is acceptable.
(c) Performance and Cost Report: DI-FNCL-80912. Contractor format is acceptable.
(d) Contract Fund Status Report (CFSR): DI-MGMT-81468. Contractor format is acceptable.
(e) Project Planning Chart (Detailed Integrated Master Schedule): DI-MGMT-80507A/T.
Contractor format is acceptable.
(f) Program review agenda, charts, minutes (Conference Agenda): DI-ADMN-81249A;
Presentation Material: DI-ADMN-81373/T; and Conference Minutes: DI-ADMN-81250A.
Contractor format is acceptable.
(g) Design drawings (Developmental Design Drawings and Associated Lists): DI-SESS81002D. Contractor format is acceptable.
(h) Test plans (Test Plan): DI-NDTI-80566.
(i) Test data (Test/Inspection Report): DI-NDTI-80809B.
(j) Hardware / software (i.e., simulation models) developed or purchased under contract
(Computer Software Product End Items): DI-MCCR-80700.
(k) Final technical report (Scientific and Technical Reports) (Final Report): DI-MISC-80711A/T.
The Final Report, which will be published in Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), must
document the entire effort and must include relevant data and results from other technical data
that would not otherwise be published. The Final Technical Report must be submitted
electronically through secure means in Microsoft Word 2003 or later, or compatible format. The
Government must be given authorization to read and write to the electronic document.
(l) The contractor may propose additional elements or submittal of combined elements or DIDs
as appropriate for the proposed program.
(8) Meetings and Reviews: The Government anticipates the following program meetings and
reviews: Kickoff within a month of contract start date at contractors facilities; Technical
Interchange Meetings (TIM) quarterly and/or at times coinciding with key program milestones or
decision points to be held at the contractors facility, and others that may alternate locations
between the contractors facilities and Eglin AFB; and a Final Program review at completion of
the program at Eglin AFB, FL. The contractor may propose to conduct or participate in other
meetings with subcontractors, Government agencies, or third parties, as deemed necessary.
(9) Proprietary Items: The Government prefers the proposed SITES design include no parts,
materials, methods, or software that are proprietary. White papers and proposals shall identify
any proprietary materials, products, software, or processes to be used by the prime or
subcontractor(s) in the performance of this program, and shall address acquisition of data rights
or licenses, or expected recoupment of development costs for those proprietary items that will
be integral to the SITES design prior to contract award.
(10) Security Requirements: Portions of this program may be classified, and it is expected a
DD Form 254 will apply to the awarded contract. Emissions Security (EMSEC) requirements
will apply. Generation of classified material is authorized only on equipment approved for
classified processing by Air Force EMSEC authorities. Based upon the proposed technical
approach, the Government may provide a Security Classification Guide at contract award or

4 DRAFT

during the performance of the contract, whenever the requirements of the guide, as it pertains to
the contract performance, can be determined. (Also see paragraph C(7), below)
(11) Special Requirements: International Traffic in Arms Regulations (Export Control) applies.
(12) Subcontracting Plan: Subcontracting plans will be required in accordance with FAR 19.
C--ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
(1) Number/Type of Contracts: The Government anticipates negotiating approximately two
Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee type contracts for this effort.
TO 0001 (the first 6 months) of the program will be issued along with each contract awarded. At
the end of Task Order 0001, it is expected further Tasks will be awarded to only one of the
contractors. It is currently expected that the SITES program will consist primarily of TOs 0001
and 0002. However, an IDIQ contract will allow for additional in-scope tasks to be awarded in
order to accommodate spiral developments and additional funding, should it become available.
(2) Expected Award Date: August, 2007
(3) Anticipated Period of Performance: The basic IDIQ SITES Program contract ordering
period will be 5 years. The current SITES Program is anticipated to take 39 months. TO 0001,
is envisioned to last approximately 6 months; TO 0002 (Part 2a) is envisioned to take
approximately 15 months; and TO 0002 (Part 2b) is envisioned to take approximately 18
months. However, these timelines are recognized to be dependent on actual program progress
made in earlier Task Orders/Tasks. The 5-year ordering period will allow for the addition of inscope tasks and spiral developments should additional funding become available.
(4) Government Estimate: The Government expects to fund up to approximately $6.83M on
contracts for this entire effort. This figure includes approximately $0.78M, $1.96M, $2.1M,
$1.96M in each of FY07 - FY10, respectively. As approximately two awards are anticipated for
Task Order 0001, a maximum of $600,000 for each issued Task 0001 is anticipated; a
maximum of $5,600,000 is expected for Task 0002. This funding profile is an estimate only and
is not a promise of funding, as all funding is subject to changes/availability and Government
discretion. The ceiling maximum for each IDIQ contract will be $10 million in order to
accommodate spiral developments and increased funding, should it become available. The
guaranteed minimum order quantity will be the value of Task Order 0001.
(5) Government Furnished Property (GFP): The Government may assist in providing GFP,
based on availability, if requested. Therefore, the offeror shall include a detailed list of
Government resources, with their associated approximate value, required to execute a contract
in a timely and cost effective manner.
(6) Request For Annex 1: Contractors must obtain Annex 1, SITES Technical Data, by
sending a certified copy of a DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement,
appropriate clearance data, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and approved
mailing address to Mr. Kevin Jerome via mail or fax (see Section F Points of Contact,
paragraph (2)). After acceptance of these items, this data package may be obtained in person
or via mail. Request should be provided early enough to allow the Government 14 days to
provide the document. The contractor must request release of export-controlled data related to
the SITES program, and must identify an individual who will be responsible for controlling this
data. No supplemental documentation will be provided unless requested in strict accordance
with these instructions.
(7) Notice to Foreign-Owned Firms: A determination has been made for this solicitation, that
all foreign participation at the prime contractor level will be prohibited.

5 DRAFT

(8) Hazardous Materials: The contractor must identify any hazardous materials to be used in
performance of this effort in the White Paper and any subsequently requested Formal Proposal.
D-- WHITE PAPER AND PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS:
(1) White Papers: White Paper submittals should reference MNK-BAA-07-0003 (SITES), and
should be submitted, not later than 2:00 PM Central Time, 14 May 07, to AFRL/MNK,
attention Ms Leah Ransom and Ms Carol Abbott. Offerors should be alert to any
amendments that may be published to this BAA. The Government reserves the right to amend
due dates or other data as necessary. White papers should include a Rough Order of
Magnitude (ROM) cost for the SITES Program, broken down by task orders, if applicable. All
submittals received will be reviewed and evaluated using the Evaluation Criteria found in
Section E - Basis for Award. Thus, white papers should address all areas indicated by these
factors, including how the contractor intends to achieve the requirements outlined in Section B
Requirements, of this BAA, for the entire program. Additionally, the White Papers shall include
any partners, subcontractors, etc., to be utilized, discuss risk (schedule and cost) assessment,
technology maturity level required to meet requirements, and identify the modeling and
simulation (M&S) software that will be used in munition guidance integrated fuze design and
effectiveness assessments.
(2) General: All offerors should apply the restrictive notice prescribed in the provision at FAR
52.215-1 (e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, to trade secrets or privileged
commercial and financial information contained in their white papers and proposals. For formal
proposals, submit separate Technical and Cost Volumes, and mark them as valid for 180 days.
Volume 1 should provide the Technical proposal, and should be unclassified, if possible. Any
classified material must be provided in a separate Annex and must be properly marked and
handled as such. Any classified material should be provided directly to Mr. Jerome or Mr.
Nguyen rather than to AFRL/MNK. Volume 2, Cost Proposal, must be unclassified, and should
address the price, cost details, and a risk assessment of the proposal.
(3) Technical Proposal: In the event that the White Paper results in an invitation to submit a
formal proposal, Volume 1 -Technical Proposal shall include, as a minimum, a Statement of
Work (SOW) for the basic IDIQ contract, suitable for incorporation into the basic contract; and a
contract schedule. Additionally, a SOW suitable for incorporation should be provided for Task
Order 0001 and a Statement of Objectives (SOO) for Task Order 0002. Volume 1 should fully
address the approach in accomplishing the Program objectives/requirements of Section B
above. The contractor must also provide a summary of relevant past and present capabilities
and experience. Relevant experience is defined as performance by the proposed program
manager, lead technical investigator and/or chief engineer supporting sensor development
programs within the last 5 years, and past efforts by other key personnel proposed by the
offeror for performance of this contract. State the capacity in which these individuals acted in
these relevant programs. The offeror must provide sufficient technical discussion and technical
detail to establish the soundness of the proposed approach; provide an adequate basis for
assessing program technical cost and schedule risk; and form a sound basis for the cost
proposed in Volume 2. Proposals failing to provide adequate technical detail and discussion
may be considered technically unresponsive to this BAA. The technical proposal shall also
include an overall test plan, with a supporting test matrix and discussion, which identifies all
contractor- and Government-conducted testing, as well as the facilities at which the testing is to
occur. The contractor must demonstrate knowledge of the systems engineering process and
make realistic assumptions of how the proposed technology enhances performance at the
missile system level; identify any perceived risks, and risk mitigation actions to be taken.
(4) Cost Proposal: The Volume 2 formal cost proposal must include and segregate the
contract costs, and also provide a total summary. The contract costs shall include, as a

6 DRAFT

minimum, a labor category and man-hour breakdown, by task, including applicable labor rates,
a cost element summary including labor, material, travel, other direct costs, overheads, G&A,
etc., and reflecting all rates for the contract and data, and an expenditure schedule for the
entire program. The offeror shall include estimates for the cost/value of any Government
Furnished Property (GFP), and all costs expected to be incurred by the Government associated
with providing the equipment, facilities and support necessary to meet the contractors testing
requirements. Any costs associated with data or data rights shall be separately identified in the
cost proposal. Cost and Pricing/Certified data shall be required in accordance with FAR 15.
(5) Page Limits and Preparation Guidance: White Papers are limited to 15 pages, including
the ROM cost estimate. Formal Technical Proposal shall be limited to a total of 50 pages,
which includes charts, figures, tables, etc. Proposed SOWs and resumes may be included as
appendices, and will not be counted in the page limitations. The Government reserves the right
to remove and return to the offeror any excess pages before the formal evaluation starts.
Formal Cost Proposal will have no page limitation; however, cost proposals exceeding 30
pages are discouraged. Cost proposal spreadsheets must be submitted in Microsoft Excel
format. A page is defined to be one side of an 8.5 x 11-inch piece of paper with information on
it. Print size is 12-point type, in Arial or Times New Roman. White Papers and Technical
Proposals must be in both hard copy and electronic media (CD-ROM or DVD), in Word and
Portable Document File (PDF) format, and must bear the MNK-BAA-07-0003 marking.
Proposals submitted on disk are to be submitted in Microsoft Word 2003 or later format and
PDF. Note: The preferred format for all proposals is via electronic means. The Government
intends to work proposals and awards through electronic means. To do business with the Air
Force Research Laboratory /Munitions Directorate (AFRL/MN), you must have software
packages that are compatible with Microsoft Office 2003. White Paper and Proposals shall be
submitted as an original document and six paper copies, and one copy of both the Technical
and Cost Proposals should be submitted on CD or DVD. E-mail and fax submissions will not be
accepted. A confirmation of receipt will be generated via e-mail as White Papers are received, if
an e-mail address is provided with the submission. Both White Papers and Proposals must be
submitted to AFRL/MNK Contracting Office to the parties shown in Section F Points of
Contact, paragraph (1). Note: Submittal of White Papers or Proposals constitutes authorization
by the contractor for limited reproduction and dissemination within Government agencies and
National Laboratories for evaluation purposes only, as stated in FAR 52.215-1(e).
(6) Proposal/White Paper Preparation Costs: The cost of preparing initial White Papers and
Proposals in response to this announcement is not considered an allowable direct charge to any
resulting contract, or any other contract. It may, however, be an allowable expense as a normal
bid and proposal indirect cost specified in FAR 31.205-18. In the event proposal revisions are
necessary after contract award, the cost of preparing such proposals may be an allowable direct
charge.
(7) Data Rights: The Government anticipates unlimited data rights to all data generated under
this contract, to include drawings and results. The contractor is instructed to address data rights
assertions, licenses, patents, etc., in White Papers and Proposals.
(8) Contractual Authority: Offerors are advised that only the Contracting Officer is legally
authorized to contractually bind or otherwise obligate the Government. The Government
reserves the right to award one, multiple, or no contracts, based on the proposals received and
the requirements of the Government.
(9) Cover Page: Each submittal must have a cover page with the following data: BAA Name
and Number; Company Name and Address; Technical Point of Contact (POC); Business/
Contracting POC; e-mail addresses for POCs; CAGE Code; DUNS Number; Business Size.

7 DRAFT

EBASIS FOR AWARD:

(1) Proposal Evaluation Criteria: White Papers and Proposals will be evaluated as to their
likelihood of success in achieving the objectives/ requirements outlined in Section B
Objectives Task 1, of the BAA, utilizing the Factors and Sub-factors below. Additionally, a
risk assessment will be made of the offers, and selections will be made based on the Best Value
to the Government. Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Although Cost is less
important than Technical, it is still considered a significant factor.
(1.1) Award Evaluation Criteria Task 1
Task 1, Factor (1) Scientific/Technical Merit Sub-factors (a) through (d) are of
equal importance (50%).
(a) Soundness of offerors proposed technical approach
(b) Extent to which the White Paper & Proposals demonstrates that the defined
requirements can be accomplished with the proposed technology
(c) Scope and feasibility of proposed analysis
(d) Scope of technologies to be investigated
Task 1, Factor (2) Capabilities and Experience Subfactors (a) through (c) in
Factor (2) are of equal importance (30%).
(a) Personnel/Management: Experience and capabilities of all key personnel
(both technical and management); experience and capabilities to manage
technical risks, control cost and schedule.
(b) Facilities, equipment and techniques necessary to accomplish the project.
(c) Subcontract Management: Experience and capabilities to manage
subcontractor performance, cost and schedule; nature and extent of reliance on
subcontractor.
Capabilities and experience may include unique combinations of these subfactors, which
are integral factors for achieving proposal objectives. Experience may be best indicated
by work performed on programs of similar scope and complexity within the last 5 years.
Any resumes should be in a separate Appendix, which is not included in the White Paper
or Technical Proposal page limits. The government team may request supplemental
historical information if required to confirm/verify experience and capabilities.
Task 1, Factor (3) Cost (20%) Reasonableness and realism of proposed costs. The
total cost to be evaluated will include the cost of performing the contract, the cost of
testing, and any applicable offsets for GFP or acquisition of data rights. In addition, the
Program structure should be such that contract funds are expended, to the greatest
extent possible, to meet or exceed the following time phased goals:
Months After Task 1 Award
% Contract Funds Expended

1
0%

2
3
4
5
6
15% 25% 40% 60% 90%

(1.2) Award Evaluation Criteria Task 2:

Technical selection will be based upon a reassessment under the original BAA evaluation
criteria in light of contractor performance on Task Order 0001.

The Factors and Sub-factors below will be used. Additionally, a risk assessment
will be made of the results of Task 1, and selections will be made based on the
Best Value to the Government. Factors are listed in descending order of
importance. Although Cost is less important than Technical, it is still considered
a significant factor.

8 DRAFT

Contractors will be evaluated as to the likelihood of achieving the Program

Requirements outlined in Section BSITES Requirements of the BAA, based
upon their technical, schedule, and cost performance during Task 1 and the
feasibility of the technical concept(s) developed during Task 1. Performance
estimation adequate to demonstrate the feasibility of the SITES concept(s) during
Task 1, which was primarily accomplished by modeling, simulation, & analysis
will be presented at the Task 1 Final Review. This information presented at the
Task 1 Final Review will be the primary focus of the Award Evaluation for Factor
(1).

A Risk Assessment will be made that includes the risk(s) inherent to the
translation of the Concept(s) developed during Task 1. These Risks include:
Translation of Concept(s) to physically realizable hardware and software
Performance limitation(s) inherent to the Concept(s) for both Air-Air and
Air-Surface scenarios
Maturity of the technologies inherent to the Concept(s)

For Task 2 evaluation purposes, Factors 2 & 3 will use ALL information
generated during Task 1 AND from information from the original proposal.

Task 2, Factor (1) Scientific/Technical Merit Sub-factors (a) through (d) are of
equal importance (50%).
(a) Soundness of offerors Technical performance during Task 1
(b) Extent to which the SITES Concept demonstrates that the SITES Program
Requirements can be accomplished with the proposed technology.
(c) Scope and feasibility of proposed analysis, design, and testing planned for
Task 2, including sufficient incremental development
(d) Technology Risk Assessment
Task 2, Factor (2) Capabilities and Experience Sub-factors (a) through (c) are of
equal importance (30%).
(a) Personnel/Management: Experience and capabilities of all key personnel
(both technical and management); experience and capabilities to manage
technical risks, control cost and schedule.
(b) Facilities, equipment and techniques necessary to accomplish the project.
(c) Subcontractor: Experience and capabilities to manage subcontractor
performance, cost and schedule; nature and extent of reliance on subcontractor
Task 2, Factor (3) Cost (20%) Cost performance during Task 1, and reasonableness
and realism of proposed costs. The total cost to be evaluated will include the cost of
performing the contract, the cost of testing, and any applicable offsets for GFP or
acquisition of data rights. In addition, the Program structure should be such that contract
funds are expended, to the greatest extent possible, to meet or exceed the following
time phased goals:
Months After Task 2 Award
% Contract Funds Expended

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
0% 10% 15% 20% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%

Ensuing months of the Task 2 portion of the SITES program should be structured so as
to maximize contract expenditures, particularly for purchases of high cost items, early in
the Governments fiscal year, which begins October 1st continuing through September
30th.

9 DRAFT

F--POINTS OF CONTACT:
(1) Business/Contracting/Cost Information: Address all concerns to both: Leah Ransom,
Contract Specialist, (850) 883-2679 at leah.ransom@eglin.af.mil, and Carol Abbott, Contracting
Officer, at carol.abbott@eglin.af.mil. Address and fax for both: AFRL/MNK, 101 West Eglin
Blvd, Suite 337, Eglin AFB FL 32542-6810; and fax (850) 882-9599.
(2) Programmatic/Technical Issues and Information: Program Manager, Kevin Jerome,
phone (850) 883-0576; Fax: (850) 882-2707; e-mail jeromek@eglin.af.mil or alternate Program
Manager, Douglas Nguyen, phone (850) 883-0574; e-mail nguyend@eglin.af.mil. Address:
AFRL/MNMF, 306 West Eglin Blvd, Bldg 432, Eglin AFB FL 32542-5430.

10 DRAFT

ATTACHMENT 1
Evaluation Template TASK 1
(One for each evaluator per White Paper/Proposal)
Announcement: MNK-BAA-07-0003, SITES Program
Contractor:

Evaluator:

Evaluation Factors 1- 3 are in descending order of importance:

Task 1, Factor (1) Scientific/Technical Merit Sub-factors (a) through (d) are of
equal importance (50%).
(a) Soundness of offerors proposed technical approach
(b) Extent to which the White Paper & Proposals demonstrates that the defined
requirements can be accomplished with the proposed technology
(c) Scope and feasibility of proposed analysis
(d) Scope of technologies to be investigated
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Technical Issues/Clarifications:
Proposal Risk Assessment*: High __ Moderate __ Low __
Pertinent Comments re. Risk Assessment Rationale and Mitigation Factors:
*Proposal Risk Definitions:
High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of
performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close
Government monitoring.
Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of
performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be
able to overcome difficulties.
Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of
performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able
to overcome difficulties.

11 DRAFT

Evaluation Template
(One for each evaluator per White Paper/Proposal)
Announcement: MNK-BAA-07-0003, SITES Program
Contractor:

Evaluator:

Task 1, Factor (2) Capabilities and Experience Subfactors (a) through (c) in
Factor (2) are of equal importance (30%).
(a) Personnel/Management: Experience and capabilities of all key personnel
(both technical and management); experience and capabilities to manage
technical risks, control cost and schedule.
(b) Facilities, equipment and techniques necessary to accomplish the project.
(c) Subcontract Management: Experience and capabilities to manage
subcontractor performance, cost and schedule; nature and extent of reliance on
subcontractor.
Capabilities and experience may include unique combinations of these
subfactors, which are integral factors for achieving proposal objectives.
Experience may be best indicated by work performed on programs of similar
scope and complexity within the last 5 years. Any resumes should be in a
separate Appendix, which is not included in the White Paper or Technical
Proposal page limits. The government team may request supplemental historical
information if required to confirm/verify experience and capabilities.
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Technical Issues/Clarifications:
Proposal Risk Assessment*: High __ Moderate __ Low __
Pertinent Comments re. Risk Assessment Rationale and Mitigation Factors:

*Proposal Risk Definitions:

High: Insignificant, or unsuccessful, related capabilities and/or experience. Risk may be
unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Moderate: Some related capabilities and experience, but not directly associated with this
technology. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be
able to overcome difficulties.
Low: Significant relevant capabilities and experience directly associated with this technology.

12 DRAFT

Evaluation Template
(One for each evaluator per White Paper/Proposal)
Announcement: MNK-BAA-07-0003, SITES Program
Contractor:

Evaluator:

Task 1, Factor (3) Cost (20%) Reasonableness and realism of proposed costs. The
total cost to be evaluated will include the cost of performing the contract, the cost of
testing, and any applicable offsets for GFP or acquisition of data rights. In addition, the
Program structure should be such that contract funds are expended, to the greatest
extent possible, to meet or exceed the following time phased goals:
Months After Task 1 Award
% Contract Funds Expended

1
0%

2
3
4
5
6
15% 25% 40% 60% 90%

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Technical Issues/Clarifications:
Proposal Risk Assessment*: High __ Moderate __ Low __
Pertinent Comments re. Risk Assessment Rationale and Mitigation Factors:

*Proposal Risk Definitions:

High: Cost proposed, labor mix and number of hours does not reflect that the Contractor has a
clear understanding of the effort required to achieve technical objectives. Risk may be
unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Moderate: Indicators exists that additional labor categories or hours may be required to
complete the technical effort.
Low: Cost proposed, labor mix and number of hours reflect that the Contractor has a clear
understanding of the effort required to achieve technical objectives.

13 DRAFT

ATTACHMENT 2
Evaluation Template TASK 2
(One for each evaluator per White Paper/Proposal)
Announcement: MNK-BAA-07-0003, SITES Program
Contractor:

Evaluator:

Evaluation Factors 1-3 are in descending order of importance:

Task 2, Factor (1) Scientific/Technical Merit Sub-factors (a) through (d) are of
equal importance (50%).
(a) Soundness of offerors Technical performance during Task 1
(b) Extent to which the SITES Concept demonstrates that the SITES Program
Requirements can be accomplished with the proposed technology.
(c) Scope and feasibility of proposed analysis, design, and testing planned for
Task 2, including sufficient incremental development
(d) Technology Risk Assessment
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Technical Issues/Clarifications:
Proposal Risk Assessment*: High __ Moderate __ Low __
Pertinent Comments re. Risk Assessment Rationale and Mitigation Factors:
*Proposal Risk Definitions:
High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of
performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close
Government monitoring.
Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of
performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be
able to overcome difficulties.
Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of
performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able
to overcome difficulties.

14 DRAFT

Evaluation Template
(One for each evaluator per White Paper/Proposal)
Announcement: MNK-BAA-07-0003, SITES Program
Contractor:

Evaluator:

Task 2, Factor (2) Capabilities and Experience Sub-factors (a) through (c) are of
equal importance (30%).
(a) Personnel/Management: Experience and capabilities of all key personnel
(both technical and management); experience and capabilities to manage
technical risks, control cost and schedule.
(b) Facilities, equipment and techniques necessary to accomplish the project.
(c) Subcontractor: Experience and capabilities to manage subcontractor
performance, cost and schedule; nature and extent of reliance on subcontractor.
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Technical Issues/Clarifications:
Proposal Risk Assessment*: High __ Moderate __ Low __
Pertinent Comments re. Risk Assessment Rationale and Mitigation Factors:

*Proposal Risk Definitions:

High: Insignificant, or unsuccessful, related capabilities and/or experience. Risk may be
unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Moderate: Some related capabilities and experience, but not directly associated with this
technology. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be
able to overcome difficulties.
Low: Significant relevant capabilities and experience directly associated with this technology.

15 DRAFT

Evaluation Template
(One for each evaluator per White Paper/Proposal)
Announcement: MNK-BAA-07-0003, SITES Program
Contractor:

Evaluator:

Task 2, Factor (3) Cost (20%) Cost performance during Task 1, and reasonableness
and realism of proposed costs. The total cost to be evaluated will include the cost of
performing the contract, the cost of testing, and any applicable offsets for GFP or
acquisition of data rights. In addition, the Program structure should be such that contract
funds are expended, to the greatest extent possible, to meet or exceed the following
time phased goals:
Months After Task 2 Award
% Contract Funds Expended

1
0%

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
10% 15% 20% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%

Ensuing months of the Task 2 portion of the SITES program should be structured so as
to maximize contract expenditures, particularly for purchases of high cost items, early in
the Governments fiscal year, which begins October 1st continuing through September
30th.
Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Technical Issues/Clarifications:
Proposal Risk Assessment*: High __ Moderate __ Low __
Pertinent Comments re. Risk Assessment Rationale and Mitigation Factors:

*Proposal Risk Definitions:

High: Cost proposed, labor mix and number of hours does not reflect that the Contractor has a
clear understanding of the effort required to achieve technical objectives. Risk may be
unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Moderate: Indicators exists that additional labor categories or hours may be required to
complete the technical effort.
Low: Cost proposed, labor mix and number of hours reflect that the Contractor has a clear
understanding of the effort required to achieve technical objectives.

16 DRAFT