Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JANUARY 27, 2010 FBO #2986
SOLICITATION NOTICE

16 -- Research and Development - Capability-Based Operations and Sustainment Technology Aviation (COSTA) (6.3)

Notice Date

1/25/2010
 

Notice Type

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
 

NAICS

541712 — Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
 

Contracting Office

Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AMCOM-CC), ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577
 

ZIP Code

23604-5577
 

Solicitation Number

W911W6-10-R-1002
 

Response Due

4/23/2010
 

Archive Date

6/22/2010
 

Point of Contact

sandra.schuck, 7578784819
 

E-Mail Address

Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AMCOM-CC)
(sandra.schuck@us.army.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) is soliciting technical and cost proposals to conduct a 6.3 Research & Development program as described below. Proposals are required to be submitted in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein. Introduction: The Army desires to transition its aviation fleet to Condition Based Maintenance (CBM), as directed by the DoD Logistics Transformation Strategy at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=32584 and the Army Aviation CBM+ Plan 20 November 2004 at http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mpp/cbm+/Army/Aviation%20CBM+%20PLAN%2029%20NOV%2004v6.doc. This BAA is responsive to the Armys plan to mature embedded diagnostics and prognostics. Current maintenance is reactive to faults, not proactive, resulting in an excessive logistics support burden and high O&S costs. The Army S&T goal to decrease O&S cost by reducing maintenance, which was derived from the Rotary Wing Vehicle Technology Development Approach and the Aviation S&T Strategic Planning Workshops, supports this transition to CBM. Specific 2013 program metrics are 50% Reduction in Inspections/ Flight Hour, 12% Reduction in Maintenance Labor/ Flight Hour, 15% Increase in Component Mean Time between Removals, less than 5% False Removal Rates and 10 hr detection time before failure measured against a 2005 fielded aircraft baseline. An integrated set of technologies is required to provide aviation platforms the ability to accurately assess health and project failure of critical aircraft components, based on actual usage in operational environments. The Capabilities-Based Operations and Sustainment TechnologiesAviation (COST-A) program will develop and demonstrate an integrated set of diagnostic, prognostic and system health assessment technologies to support Army objectives and enable transition to a CBM based philosophy. Specific COST-A objectives are reduction of inspections and preventative maintenance, expansion of serviceability criteria, extension of life or time between overhaul, and prediction of failure with sufficient fidelity to allow scheduling of maintenance. Many technical opportunities exist to enable implementing condition based maintenance; however there are several key technical challenges. High fault detection rates need to be achieved with minimal false alarms. A wide range of aircraft components and failure modes need to be monitored with limited sensor data and a minimal weight penalty. Accurate estimates of remaining useful life for components across varying usage and environment are required. This program will result in an integrated set of demonstrated technologies that can be transitioned to support CBM. For this program, transition is defined as implementation of the technologies, after successful completion of this program, into an Army rotary wing aircraft (CH-47, UH-60, AH-64, OH-58). This COST-A BAA will be limited to 6.3 Advanced Technology Development. Efforts under this BAA will develop, mature and demonstrate the technologies required to provide useful prognostics and system health information to support maintenance and operational decisions. Through this effort, technologies are expected to be matured to a TRL 6 (system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment), as well as be on a path for transition. Demonstration testing shall be full scale and representative of the expected aircraft operating environment and be of sufficient scope to validate the capability, accuracy and robustness of the technologies. Technical Description. The Government is seeking an integrated COST-A solution that will reduce the future maintenance burden, reduce O&S costs, and enable implementation of CBM methodologies. Specifically, the Government desires an integrated set of technologies to allow: reduction of inspections and preventative maintenance; expansion of serviceability criteria; extension of life or time between overhaul; prediction of failure with sufficient fidelity to allow scheduling of maintenance. Open systems architecture and use of common data standards are required. Proposed technologies shall be demonstrated to validate the capability, accuracy and functionality of sensors, interfaces and algorithms. Integration into an on-board data collection, processing, and storage device shall be conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the technologies as a single solution. A methodology to demonstrate the proposed technologies as well as an integrated solution shall be defined. Offerors are required to address each of the six rotorcraft technology areas, listed below (Propulsion System, Drives System, Electrical System, Structural System, Rotors System and Vehicle Management System) as part of their proposed solution. The integration effort is required, as a minimum, to include technologies from each of the six rotorcraft technology areas and shall demonstrate the capabilities of the integrated solution. Offerors should justify their proposed technology selections and approach by quantifying benefits relative to current maintenance actions/drivers and program metrics. Offerors should consider aircraft integration and implementation feasibility as a part of their proposed solution, specifically with respect to weight and numbers of sensor systems. As a means to minimize impact, Offerors are encouraged to take advantage of available aircraft data and / or other sensor data wherever feasible. Offerors shall describe a clear path for transition and quantifiable benefits relative to the 2013 metrics.Propulsion System Maintenance of turboshaft engines are cost drivers and have a large impact on the safety and reliability of the aircraft. Efforts in the propulsion area should demonstrate prognostic capabilities. Efforts should demonstrate the ability to determine the remaining useful life of engine mechanical components, accessories, controls, sensors and wiring, and provide feedback for mission planning and maintenance scheduling. The monitoring and prognosis of engine Line Replaceable Units (LRU) is desired while minimizing additional sensors. Improvements in torque measurement can reduce the variability of power predictions, enable accurate maintenance decisions and increase the fidelity of usage monitoring.Drives System Drive systems impact safety of flight and are rigorously maintained. Much effort has been put into detecting gear and bearing failures through vibration and numerous other techniques, however prognostics have not been addressed. Proposed tasks should extend the current work to demonstrate prognostic methods with improved accuracy. Measurement of usage by methods such as torque/moment monitoring of mast and tail drive components is needed to enable on-condition replacement. In addition, methods to reduce the requirement for costly seeded fault testing are desired to aid in technology transition. Electrical System. Electronics, electrical power components and the associated wiring impact both aircraft maintenance cost through false removals and troubleshooting time. Intermittent faults and signal degradation due to wiring are challenging maintenance problems. Prognosis of electronics and electrical components is difficult due to the large number of failure modes and the uncertainty of the failures. Efforts should focus on the prognostics for electronic/electrical line replaceable units and automated diagnosis and fault isolation of wiring. Structural System. Structural maintenance significantly impacts sustainment costs and operational availability of rotorcraft. A considerable amount of work has already been done developing technologies that can detect damage (corrosion, fatigue, and impact) in airframe structures by monitoring the environment, loading, and structural behavior; however, these diagnostic technologies are currently independent of each other, require a significant amount of sensors, and have a limited prognostics capability. The intent of this effort is to build upon the work already done and demonstrate an efficient, fused approach to quickly assess structural integrity and predict service life remaining so that operators can make informed, risk-based decisions on the operational status of their rotorcraft. Included in this is: (1) the ability to safely reduce the manual inspection requirements of structural components, especially those that are maintenance intensive (difficult to access or that currently require frequent inspection); (2) the ability to effectively fuse aircraft past and future usage with health status to enable manageable, cost-efficient, scheduled maintenance and repairs; (3) the ability to understand the effect of flight restrictions, maintenance actions, and various repair options on the vehicles operational status as well as the risk of continued operation without repair. Offerors should consider weight and number of sensors as part of their proposed solution. Rotors System. Blade maintenance is predominantly driven by impact damage (e.g. ballistic damage, delaminations, voids) and is also dependent on the location and severity of the damage. Efforts are currently ongoing to investigate improved Battle Damage Assessment and Repair (BDAR) methods and techniques in order to establish damage criteria and determine if a blade needs to be repaired, how and where (i.e. field or depot) it can be repaired, or if it can be repaired at all. Advanced Technology Development is needed to demonstrate the ability to actively detect, localize, and determine severity of blade damage. This capability can refine and complement the BDAR process, providing higher fidelity data for damage assessment and more appropriate repair methods. Rotors and their associated dynamic components operate in high-cycle and environmentally challenging conditions. Maintenance of the dynamic hub components (spherical bearings, bushings, pushrods, root end couplings, etc.) is driven by high-cycle fatigue, and many of these areas are difficult to access and inspect. There is a need to monitor and effectively diagnose the integrity of the rotor system, which includes tracking actual usage and providing ample data to support either the assignment of usage credits or a reduced inspection/diagnostics effort once damage has occurred. The Army also desires the capability to predict remaining useful life and/or time to maintenance action of the rotor system based upon diagnosed component level events/faults, actual usage, and operational environments. Offerors need to also consider the unique challenges in reliably transferring data and power across the rotating frame (rotating component to static airframe). Additionally, the Army desires advanced technologies that enable automated onboard adjustment of rotor track-and-balance, since current procedures require a maintenance action and improper track-and-balance can lead to several problems (e.g., increased vibration, decreased fatigue life). Vehicle Management System. Vehicle Management System (VMS) components (flight controls, pumps, bell cranks, bearings, electronics, actuators, etc.) require frequent inspections which are labor intensive, and often result in low fidelity diagnosis. Advanced technology development is needed to improve the diagnostic and prognostic capability and reduce the frequency and complexity of inspections, thereby reducing maintenance labor hours associated with VMS components. Also, a total aircraft VMS approach is desired, in which information from other systems is used to improve vehicle state awareness and enable effective diagnostic and prognostic capability for VMS components. This comprehensive understanding of the aircrafts health status also offers the potential to improve the diagnostic/prognostic fidelity for the other systems, as well as reduce component false removal rates and increase mean time between removals. The intent of this effort is to (1) develop technology to reduce maintenance labor hours by reducing the frequency and complexity of inspections associated with VMS components; (2) define the property requirements (e.g. data rates, resolution, accuracy, etc.) to allow data use, independent of the source, to enable a VMS architecture; and (3) develop algorithms that use the available information to diagnose and prognosticate the health of the VMS components and other aircraft systems. Integration. The integration effort shall encompass each of the six technology areas (Propulsion System, Drives System, Electrical System, Structural System, Rotors System and Vehicle Management System) and should include all of the technologies developed / demonstrated under this program. A system level analysis should be conducted to minimize impact to the aircraft. This includes, as a minimum, overall system weight, number of sensors /systems, installation cost, maintenance cost, and effect on performance. As a means to minimize impact, reduce false alarms, and increase overall effectiveness, offerors are encouraged to take advantage of multiple system (technology area) sensors and logic wherever feasible. An integration process should be defined that uses an open system architecture and data standards. This process should allow the use of third party software while protecting proprietary processes or algorithms. Hardware, software and interface requirements should be defined and documented early in the effort. This should include allocation of hardware resources such as processing, memory and interface bandwidth to the developed technologies. An integration demonstration shall be conducted that demonstrates the developed technologies functioning as an integrated system and providing meaningful status information to the user. ANTICIPATED FUNDING LEVEL AND PERFORMANCE PERIOD: Available Government funding is approximately $15 million distributed by Government fiscal year as follows: FY10/FY11-4.0M, FY12-5.0M, FY13-5.0M, FY14-1.0M. Multiple awards encompassing all of the technology areas under this BAA are not anticipated. Expected award date is 4th quarter FY10Anticipated Period of Performance Not to exceed 40 Months Total (37 technical and 3 for Data/Final Report). Any award made under this announcement is subject to the availability of funds. Type of Funding Instrument. A variety of funding instruments are available pursuant to this announcement depending upon the proposed effort, the entity submitting the successful proposal(s), and statutory and regulatory requirements the Government must satisfy. Such instruments include conventional contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as supplemented, and Technology Investment Agreements (TIA) (Cooperative Agreement under 10 U.S.C 2358) or Other Transaction (OT) for Research (10 U.S.C. 2371), which are more flexible than traditional Government funding instruments. Under TIA's or OT(s) it is DoD policy to obtain, to the maximum extent practical, cost sharing of half of the cost of the project to ensure the recipient has a vested interest in the project's success. Cost participation may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions, where cash is considered of significantly higher quality in demonstrating commitment to the project. Cost participation will be considered in accordance with the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations, DoD 3210.6-R paragraph 34.13 (Cooperative Agreement) (but also see paragraph 37.530 pertaining to Other Transactions for Research) accessible at the following link: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321006r34p.pdf. Contract type is a subject for negotiation, but the Offerors desire should be clearly stated in the cost proposal. Proposal Evaluation. The selection for award will be based on a scientific and/or engineering evaluation of proposals (both technical and cost as it relates to technical effort) in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. Proposals will be evaluated on their own merit without regard to other proposals submitted under this announcement. Each proposal will receive an adjectival rating supported by narrative. The adjectival ratings and supporting narrative will be considered along with other factors including the extent of restrictions placed on technical data deliverables that limit the Governments ability to further exploit the results of the research and cost to the Government. The Government will develop an order of merit listing. Proposed cost/cost to the Government will be evaluated, as appropriate, for realism and reasonableness. Any proposed cost share will be evaluated for its benefit in reducing program risk, achieving program objectives, and furthering the state-of-the-art. Any percentage of cost sharing proposed could result in greater evaluation credit. Evaluation Criteria. The selection for award will be based on a scientific and/or engineering evaluation of proposals (both technical and cost as it relates to technical effort) in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The criteria below are all of equal value. Proposals will be evaluated on their own merit without regard to other proposals submitted under this announcement. These evaluations will result in narrative ratings, which will be used to develop an order of merit listing for proposals submitted. The evaluation criteria are: (1) The extent to which affordable, comprehensive, efficient, and innovative technologies are proposed within each of the six technology areas and the integrated solution to satisfy the COSTA BAA objectives. This will include understanding of the problem, current technical barriers, and how the proposed technologies and integrated solution eliminates those barriers. (2) The merit of the Offerors proposed approach to develop and demonstrate the proposed technologies within each of the technology areas and the integrated solution. This includes the reasonableness of the proposed tasks, schedule, and approach to accomplish the scientific and technical objectives. (3) The benefit of the proposed integrated solution toward meeting the 2013 program metrics and enabling transition to an Army rotary wing aircraft. This includes a clear and reasonable path to transition the technology, the efficiency and feasibility (weight, number of sensors /systems, etc.) of the proposed technologies and integrated solution, as well as the quantitative analysis of benefits. (4) The capability of the Offeror to accomplish the proposed effort. This includes the experience and qualifications of the proposed personnel, the suitability of the proposed facilities, and the availability of (or the ability to generate) required technical and test data to validate the integrated solution. The plan to award any subcontracts in a timely manner and effectively manage those subcontracts will also be considered. (5) The reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost to the Government. The proposed cost will be analyzed to determine whether the proposed cost elements (man-hours, labor categories, materials, travel, and other costs) are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's technical proposal. Any proposed cost share will be evaluated for its benefit in reducing program risk, achieving program objectives, and furthering the state-of-the-art. Security Requirements: Unclassified, subject to export controls. Performance will require access to and/or generation of technical data the export of which is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751 et. seq.) or Executive Order 12470. Prior to award, the successful Offeror(s) will be required to provide an Export-Controlled DoD Data Agreement certification number issued in accordance with DoD Directive 5230.25. This certification may be requested from the Defense Logistics Services Center, ATTN: DLSC-FBA Federal Center, Battle Creek, MI 49017-3084, Telephone 1-800-352-3572. Participation in this program is limited to U.S. as Prime Contractors; however, Subcontractors may be foreign owned. Preaward access to or submission of a classified proposals not authorized. Government Furnished Property and Data: Any expected Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) shall be clearly identified in the proposal. It is the offeror's responsibility to identify, coordinate, and furnish supporting documentation for use of any Government furnished equipment or property. No government furnished data will be provided. Offerors must have access to or be capable of generating the data required to develop and validate the algorithms or systems proposed. Other Special Requirements - Data Rights: The Government desires, at a minimum, to obtain Government Purpose Rights as defined by the DFARS, to all technical data, deliverables, and computer software to be delivered, and no limitations on the use of delivered and/or residual hardware. It is the Offeror's responsibility to clearly acknowledge or take exception to the Governments desire to Government Purpose Rights. Deliverable Items: The program will require delivery of the following data items: (1) Program Management Plan, (2) Design Review Briefing Charts, (3) Bi-Monthly Progress, Cost and Technical Performance Reports, (4) Final Report, (5) Final Briefing at Ft. Eustis, (6) Test Plans (7) Test Reports (8) Software Development Plan, (9) Software Requirements Specification, (10) Software Integration/Open Systems Documentation and (11) Computer Software Product End Items. (Note: Each of these items shall be delivered in the Offerors format).Preparation & Submission Instructions. The proposal shall consist of two volumes, a technical volume and a cost volume In presenting the proposal material, prospective Offerors are advised that the quality of the information is significantly more important than quantity. Offerors should confine the submissions to essential matters providing sufficient information to define their offer and establish an adequate basis for the Government to conduct its evaluation. The Government reserves the right to select for award only a portion of an Offerors proposal or the total proposed effort. AATD encourages and promotes teaming arrangements with research organizations to include academia, industry, and small businesses in order to achieve a mix of relevant expertise and capabilities for executing COSTA research and development efforts. The volumes shall be separate and complete so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, evaluation of the other. In addition, technical and cost proposals are due on the same date. Offerors should realize that the clarity of the presentation is important in communicating their project ideas to reviewers, and that a concise and well formulated proposal is usually more effective in that respect than a voluminous proposal that lacks effective distillation of ideas. Technical Volume. The technical volume of the proposal shall provide an analysis that justifies the selection of the technologies and the integrated system proposed, benefits of the proposed technologies relative to the 2013 metrics, and the ability to transition to an Army aircraft. Integration of the technologies and demonstration methods should be covered. The technical volume shall also include a clear statement of the program objectives and the specific approach to be pursued and supporting background experience. It shall contain a Statement of Work (SOW), program milestones, a biographical section describing key personnel, a description of the facilities and/or data sources to be employed in the effort, and a program management section. Program management should include the approach for timely award and management of any subcontracts proposed. Offerors should identify and substantiate the beginning and ending Technology Readiness Levels. The technical volume shall not exceed 90 pages (minimum 12-point font). The evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of content pages specified. Page limitations are inclusive of any drawings, charts, etc., and exclusive of section dividers, table of contents, list of figures/tables, glossary of terms and cross-referencing indices (which are not considered content pages). Pages shall be standard 8 x 11 inch paper and main body type shall be not less than a font size Times New Roman 12, not less than single spacing with margins at least 1 inch (types smaller than Times New Roman 12 are permitted only for captions, sub/super-scripts and labeling of figures and graphs). Cost Volume. Within the Cost Proposal, offerors shall indicate the proposed funding instrument (e.g., FAR-based contract and type (cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost reimbursable, etc.) or TIA). For consistency, the offeror shall submit other than cost or pricing data in the format suggested by FAR 15.403-5(b)(1), or in contractors format containing the information outlined below, together with supporting breakdowns 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. are 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. Subcontractor proposals, if applicable, including pricing rate details, should be provided concurrent with the prime contractors submission. Offerors should clearly identify the proposed contract type and clearly identify the proposed intellectual property rights extended to the Government. Proposal validity period should be identified. The cost proposal shall not contain overflow of information suited for the technical proposal. The offeror shall assure any overlap of data, (such as man-hours) does not conflict between the cost and technical proposal. In the case of any conflict between the two, information in the cost proposal will take precedence. The Cost Proposal should include the following: (1) Funding. A funding profile by month by Government fiscal year task to compare to the Governments funding profile. If proposing a cost share, display that share with the particular government funding and fiscal year. (2) Pricing breakdowns. The Cost breakdowns shall be presented in three formats; a) Total Program Level. Present all costs by cost category (including applicable rates and factors) by year (calendar or contractor year used to develop proposed rates and factors). b) Task Level. Present all costs by cost category by task level by Government fiscal year. c) If proposing a cost share, display each share for each Government fiscal year. (3) Subcontractor Costs: The offeror shall submit all subcontractor cost proposals and its proposal analyses with the cost proposal. Subcontractor proposals, if applicable, shall include all the same pricing requirements and be provided concurrent with the prime contractors submission or due to any proprietary nature of the proposal, the subcontractor can submit the more detailed proposal directly to the Government. 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. (4) 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. Provide Separate Summary Tables for the following cost elements: (1) Man-hours. Provide a summary table that shows man-hours by task without cost detail. Assure these documented man-hours do not conflict with the proposed man-hours in the technical proposal. (2) Rates and Factors: Provide a rate table by year for all labor and overhead rates and pricing factors. If Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) is in existence, that should be included, along with the Administrative Contracting Officers (ACO's) contact information. (3) Other Direct Costs. Provide a summary table by task that reflects all proposed direct costs by cost categories (travel, subcontracts etc.). Material/Equipment: For material costs identify what will be purchased and the basis for the estimated cost, e.g. vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc. List all material/equipment items with associated costs both on the pricing sheets and a separate summary page (e.g. BOM to include description, quantities, unit prices) and advise if the costs are based on vendor quotes, data and/or engineering estimates Special Tooling or Test Equipment: When special tooling, and/or test equipment is proposed include a brief description of items. Identify whether they are solely for the performance of this particular contract or project the availability if not available in the offeror's existing facilities. Indicate quantities, unit prices, whether items are to be purchased or fabricated. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not applicable if proposing award under a non-FAR instrument i.e., a Technology Investment Agreement). Pursuant to the requirements of FAR part 19.702(a) (1), if the total amount of the proposal exceeds $550,000, and there are subcontracting possibilities, offerors must submit a subcontracting plan (small businesses are not required to submit a plan). FAR part 52.219-9 defines a subcontracting plan and its requirements. Offerorsshall incorporate the subcontracting plan as part of the offerors proposal submission. DFARS 226.370-8 discuss subcontracting incentives and goals with the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions. DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(A) and (B), discusses the appropriate use of DFARS Clauses 252.219-7003 and 252.219-7004 in solicitations and contracts related to small, small disadvantaged and women-owned small business subcontracting plans. General Information. This Broad Agency Announcement constitutes the total solicitation. There will be no other solicitation issued in regard to this requirement. Offerors should be alert for any BAA amendments that may permit extensions to the proposal submission date. This announcement is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any proposal preparation costs. No pre-proposal conference is to be held. Proposal must be submitted by Proposals should be marked with the solicitation number W911W6-10-R-1002 and shall be submitted in four paper copies and electronic format on disc (PDF or MS Word) to the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, Attn: CCAM-RDT (Sandra Schuck), Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577, by APRIL 23, 2010, 3:00pm EST. Facsimile and electronic proposal submission is not authorized under this Announcement. Proposals submitted after the closing date will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition. Unless otherwise specified, proposals will be considered valid for Government acceptance through 30 April 2011. Offerors can contact AATD to ask for solicitation clarification. All questions must be emailed to the COST-A Contract Specialist at sandra.schuck@us.army.mil. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award under this BAA will not be binding. Questions received less than 2 weeks prior to the proposal receipt date may not be addressed. Any information given to a prospective Offeror concerning this Announcement, which is necessary in submitting an offer or the lack of which would be prejudicial to any other prospective Offeror(s), will be published as an amendment to this Announcement.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/bfc2c4359cce3f1b11bfb9dd34056e8c)
 

Place of Performance

Address: Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AMCOM-CC) ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard Fort Eustis VA

Zip Code: 23604-5577
 

Record

SN02049127-W 20100127/100125234726-bfc2c4359cce3f1b11bfb9dd34056e8c (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |