Contact Mr. Robert T. Crowton.
1.1 SOL RFI# CDC-04-95 POC C. Douglas Colonel, Phone number (208) 526-0204, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org, Fax number (208) 526-8086. This is an Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Request for Interest (RFI) to solicit proposals to support the Ada Technology Insertion Program-Partnership (ATIP-P). ATIP-P is a program of the Ada Joint Program Office (AJPO), an organization that is part of the Defense Information Systems Agency's Joint Interoperability and Engineering Organization, Center for Software (DISA/JIEO/CFSW). Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies (LMIT) is administering the program on behalf of the INEL and AJPO.
1.2 The AJPO's objectives for the ATIP-P are to expand and strengthen the supplier base of products supporting the Ada programming language. Such products shall exploit the features of Ada 95 in order to provide open-systems or industry standard solutions in software environments for both military and commercial applications. The intent is that the government shall act as a 'partner' in a relationship that ensures it receives some value for its investment. Developers may retain ownership of their product and will be encouraged to market such products actively in the commercial marketplace. This program will be modeled after similar Government-sponsored partnerships which encourage interaction between the private and public sectors. Direct funding will not be provided to universities, Government organizations, or non-profit research organizations, but they may participate and receive funding indirectly as members of an eligible joint venture.
1.3. This program intends to provide approximately $2 million to fund 8-10 proposals that will facilitate achievement of ATIP-P objectives. Proposing organizations are expected to share equally in the cost of the development of their proposed product(s). The offeror's cost-sharing plan should indicate their contribution to the project in terms of contributed dollars and/or value of existing products, commercialization approach and plans for the Government to realize value added for its investment.
1.4 Areas of interest are listed in the AJPO's Ada 95 Bindings Report, Tools and Libraries Report, and Ada Computer-Based Training Strategy paper. These existing standards, languages and commonly used tools include, but are not limited to: Ada 95 bindings to existing standards, languages and commonly used tools; Ada 95 development tools and environments; visual work space tools; and computer-based training tools. The referenced documents define near-and long-term requirements for bindings, tools, and libraries. The reports will be used as a basis for the evaluation process. These reports are available to any potential offeror by written request via US mail to the INEL (address below) or e-mail to email@example.com. This host is also accessible via anonymous FTP, and via the World Wide Web (URL: http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us).
2.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
2.1 A proposal must describe an Ada 95 related product, use and exploit Ada 95, provide for an 'investment' by the proposer, and the period of performance shall not extend beyond Sept. 30, 1996. In addition, evaluation scores will be based solely on the proposal's general merit, risks, and compliance with program objectives. They will be evaluated using the factors listed below. These factors are in descending order of relative importance, with the first five accounting for approximately 70% of the total evaluation points.
2.1.1 A. Product's Commercialization Potential: The product's commercialization potential is of keen importance. Generally, commercialization potential will be directly proportional to its number of potential users, its usefulness to those users, and its duration of usefulness in the context of the rapidly changing software technology market.
2.1.2 B. Performer's Commercialization Ability: The ability of the proposer to commercialize the product, and to document a clear plan to accomplish commercialization, is essential.
2.1.3 C. Value Added: The cost sharing intent of the program requires the proposer to document their contribution to the project and plans for the Government to realize value added for its contribution. Examples would include: multiple licensing discounts or reduced costs of the product to Government customers. The 'duration of usefulness' of a product, as mentioned in 2.1.1, is an important issue within value added, thus the more quickly the Government's contribution is offset by realized value added the better.
2.1.4 D. Performer's Historical Record: A performer should have a history of technical competence and commercialization experience. The abilities to both develop technically superior products and successfully distribute them in the commercial marketplace are of equal importance.
2.1.5 E. Performer's Asset Qualifications: This area should include the proposer's ability to perform the proposed tasks. Qualifications of the technical and commercialization staff, adequacy of the product development environment including equipment and facilities, and financial stability are key factors.
2.1.6 F. New and Innovative Contributions to the Ada Market: Intent of the product to promote the expansion and strengthening of Ada's use in the commercial sector. The offeror's ability to tie its product to the areas of interest expressed in the previously mentioned Ada 95 Bindings Report, Tools and Libraries Report, and Ada Computer-Based Training Strategy paper is especially important. New entries into the Ada vendor base are encouraged.
2.1.7 G. Product's Use of Standards: The adherence to Government and industry standards is relevant. Users of the proposed products should be provided access to the latest industry technologies while avoiding the difficulties which often occur in using products which are outside of Government and industry standards.
2.1.8 H. Product's Accessibility: The overall value of a product to the user community is directly proportional to the accessibility of the product and associated documentation. Available distribution methods, licensing agreements and price structures are key to the product being accessible and useable.
2.1.9 G. Investment Sharing Characteristics: The value of the proposer's investment is important. Investments can be in the form of financial contributions, leverages derived from existing products, or other innovative, tangible assets which will work to ensure success of the product. The Government's and offeror's contributions are to be applied to and only used for work performed after award of contract.
2.1.10 Associated Benefits: Services or benefits may be derived from the project which are not directly associated with the product. Elements such as training, tutorials, WWW entries and exposure through technical presentations and papers may add value to the overall success of the proposed effort.
3.1. The INEL invites offerors to submit white papers (four copies) to describe their proposals. In order to facilitate timely evaluation, white papers should address the factors identified in section 2.0 (2.1.1. through 2.1.10). In addition to these factors, a cover page that includes a short proposal title as well as the name of a point of contact, their address, phone number, and e-mail address should be provided. The white papers should be no longer than six to ten pages (excluding cover). All white papers will be reviewed as they are received to determine whether they are within the scope and intent of the program. Following this review, offerors will be notified whether they have or have not received a favorable review or are part of a group awaiting further consideration. This initial screening will save offerors the time and expense of developing a detailed formal proposal if they have little chance of being considered for an award. Favorable review of the white paper does not constitute selection of the proposed effort for subcontract award, and the offeror should not construe the review as a binding committment by LMIT to fund the effort.
3.2 Notification of a favorable review of a white paper will carry a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for a full proposal. Full proposals will also be reviewed as they are received and notice of acceptance or rejection, and funding of accepted projects will be provided throughout the solicitation period until funds are fully expended. All proprietary information should be clearly marked and will be appropriately handled during the evaluation process.
4.0 OTHER INFORMATION:
4.1 The information in this announcement constitutes the RFI. Except as noted in the RFI, no additional information or specifications are available. LMIT reserves the right to request further information about the proposal from the offeror as needed during the review. LMIT reserves the right to select for award all, some, or none of the proposals received in response to this RFI or subsequent RFPs. Issuance of this RFI or subsequent RFPs does not obligate Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies or the Government to pay any costs related to proposal preparation.
4.2 White papers will be accepted any time after the posting of this RFI, but no later than 4:00 PM, Nov. 1, 1995. Last opportunity for submitting formal proposals will be six weeks after notification of a favorable white-paper evaluation, and the due date will be so noted in the Request for Proposal (RFP). All White Papers and subsequent formal proposals must be received by LMIT in accordance with the deadlines cited above. However, LMIT reserves the right to consider a late submittal if deemed to be in the best interest of the ATIP-P program. Technical inquiries shall be directed to : Mr. C. Douglas Colonel, Program Manager, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83401-3779, Phone (208) 526-0204, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org White Paper proposals shall be clearly marked 'White Paper Proposal - RFI# CDC-04-95' and shall be mailed to: Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies, 1955 Fremont Avenue, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3876, Attn: Robert T. Crowton-Subcontract Administrator. IMPORTANT: FAX transmittals shall not be considered for evaluation.
|Home||Webmaster||Last Updated: 08/11/98|