REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS

RWP Number: C5-16-RWP-13

RWP Title: Cyberspace Operations Integration Platform (COIP)

OTA Number: W15QKN-14-9-0001

Issued by: Consortium for Command, Control andCommunications in Cyberspace (C5)1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 904Washington, DC 20036(202) 466-4211

White Papers Due Date/Time: August 18, 2016 / 4:00 PM Eastern

Submit White Papers To: RWP@C5technologies.orgInclude “C5 RWP - CCIV” in the email subject line.

Please advise C5 as soon as practicable via email to RWP@C5technologies.org if your organization is considering submittal of a White Paper to C5 in response to this RWP.

Table of Contents

Section 1. Technology Objective..........................................................................................................................1

Section 2. White Paper Submittals........................................................................................................................3

Section 3. White Paper Evaluation........................................................................................................................3

Section 4. Additional Information.........................................................................................................................4

Section 5. Points of Contact..................................................................................................................................4

Attachment 1 – Warranties and RepresentationsAttachment 2 – C5 White Paper TemplateAttachment 3 – General Information

i C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS

OverviewThis Request for White Papers (RWP) is issued by the Consortium for Command, Control and Communications in Cyberspace (C5) to support the Acquisition Liaison Office (ALO) research and development efforts. The purpose of this request is to solicit White Papers for novel and innovative prototype technologies related to the Technology Objective specified herein. The following attachments are an integral part of this RWP.

Attachment 1 – Warranties and Representations Attachment 2 – C5 White Paper Template Attachment 3 – General Information

Section 1. Technology ObjectiveThe following Technology Objective applies to this RWP: System Security

1.1 Systems SecurityThe Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)), Army Cyber Command and Second Army (ARCYBER & 2A), and TRADOC are initiating a Cyber Innovation Challenge to investigate emerging software prototype solutions. The intent of the challenge is to evaluate the technical feasibility of a cyberspace operations integration platform (COIP).

The Army is continuing to mature and operationalize the cyberspace domain. One of the Army’s top priorities, GEN Miley testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee is, “to invest in the technologies, organization, and doctrine that will allow us to maintain overmatch against future adversaries while retaining the ability to adapt to unforeseen challenges.” Army networks and information systems are large and complex, creating a large cyberspace “footprint” within the Department of Defense (DoD). The Army relies upon secure and resilient networks to support Army and joint forces from strategic to tactical levels. The Army must continue to modernize its networks and information systems through a threat-informed defense in-depth model capable of reacting to incidents, recovering and adapting in support of Unified Land Operations. The Army’s portion of the Department of Defense Information Network (DODIN) is the technical network that encompasses all Army information management systems and information systems that collect, process, store, display, disseminate, and protect information worldwide. In the pursuit of increasingly defensible networks, the Army must apply technical solutions that improve the overall security posture to create a defensible cyber terrain that is resilient and adaptable in support of Army and Joint operations.

The Army Capstone Concept (ACC), describes the anticipated future operating environment (OE), what the future Army must do based on that environment, and the broad capabilities the Army will require to accomplish its enduring missions successfully in the near to mid-term future1. In relation to cyberspace defense, the ACC states, “adversaries have conducted complex attacks integrated with military operations and continue to improve their capabilities,” and asserts that the future Army must develop the ability to counter cyber threats successfully, mitigate degraded access to cyberspace, and take local actions against enemy cyber capabilities to achieve local effects1. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, Army Operating Concept (AOC), describes how future Army forces contribute to globally integrated operations. Appendix C of the AOC states, “The Army integrates maneuver in cyberspace with the other forms of maneuver to deny the enemy’s ability to conduct operations in cyberspace while preserving U.S. freedom of action.” The AOC also emphasizes the importance of focusing on “technologies that mitigate cyber threats, as well as offensive cyberspace capabilities at the operational and tactical levels.”2 Accordingly, an integrated operations platform is necessary to facilitate the mitigation of cyber threats ensuring all threats are addressed through increased automation within relative timelines.

A cyberspace operations integration platform solution will provide functionality to support command and control orchestration through the integration of various security technologies in the areas (not exhaustive) of attack, sensing, and warning (AS&W), incident response, incident handling, analysis, reporting, automated workflows, threat intelligence, and vulnerability management. Cyberspace operations center personnel are presented with myriad sources of security, intelligence and operational data; the desired platform must enable cyber mission forces and

1 U.S. Army TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-0, The U.S. Army Capstone Concept, 19 December 2012. 2 U.S. Army TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, The U.S. Army Operating Concept (AOC), October 2014.

1 C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

security analysts to understand and visualize these feeds, and plan and execute synchronized missions (e.g., threat mitigation) through coordinated and increasingly automated workflows. This capability provides transparent mission execution improving mission effectiveness and reinforcing accountability. While existing Army tools provide many of the aforementioned functions, the desired solution centralizes the functions and streamlines the steps required between threat identification and threat mitigation, and operational planning to operational execution. This is accomplished by linking toolsets to include cyber threat detection, user access management, firewall management, Security Incident and Event Management (SIEM), Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC), and asset management.

To achieve these results and be operational at Army scale, a solution system must be horizontally scalable and deploy on existing infrastructure. Further, it must sit at the middle of the cyber security stack of solutions by integrating tool APIs, exposing their functions in a centralized manner for a single point of execution. Central to this concept is incorporating incident response plans, threat intelligence, malware analysis, policies, and alerts into actionable and automated tasks. A cyberspace operations platform is not meant to replace big data and threat intelligence solutions; it is not intended to identify anomalies through advanced analytics. Instead, it stands to enable efficient and effective operational tasks based on the aggregate functionality across the many security tools.

The following requirements are considered key aspects of an integrated cyberspace operations platform:

The solution shall align with the Army’s identity management system using multi-factor authentication and authorization.

The solution shall support integration of various security technologies and provide support for developing new integrations utilizing application programming interfaces (APIs).

The solution shall integrate systems that perform vulnerability management and other network hygiene/cybersecurity functionality.

The solution shall provide the ability to coordinate malware analysis and threat identification for cyber mission forces.

The solution shall allow either automated threat mitigation or manual cyber analyst engagement, ultimately reducing average exposure time.

The solution shall perform the data gathering and event correlation through various integration of security technologies, ultimately providing increased productivity of cyber mission forces and security analysts through increased time savings.

The solution shall provide a framework to document similar security use cases to mature the overall concepts and security process management model.

The solution shall enable security professionals and defensive cyberspace operators to effectively negotiate through the categories of common exploits.

The solution shall be capable of integrating various types of threat intelligence-based alerts The solution shall leverage security technology integration and provide the ability of autonomous

mitigation activity and recommended courses of action for security analysts.

The primary measure of effectiveness is increased productivity with improved battle-tracking, reporting, and trending. Performance is measured by lower mission execution time (e.g., threat mitigation) and increased insight into mission execution process. Ultimately, a COIP must drastically reduce the burden on organizations to keep pace with the exponentially increasing amount of threats, data, and tools. Increased integration and autonomy is a must for the future success of our forces.

The Army lacks the ability to efficiently and effectively synchronize holistic defensive cyberspace operation workflows, focusing on advanced threat and malware analysis through the integration of existing security technologies. The Government is seeking advanced prototype solutions.

White Papers submittals should address Functional Responsiveness, Feasibility, Affordability/Resources and Performance, as defined in the evaluation criteria section, and shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Also please include a paragraph (no more than ½ page) on any accreditation approach/background that is relevant to the innovation proposal.The Government is seeking a comprehensive technology solution for cyberspace operations integration platform. The Government requests delivery in at least three (3) graduated phases as outlined below:

2 C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

Phase 1 –Development & Design of Concept Architecture Phase 2 –Delivery, Operational Field Testing & Preliminary User Training Phase 3 –Robust Operational Assessment and Documentation

Section 2. White Paper Submittals2.1 White Papers SoughtThis RWP seeks the submittal of White Papers by C5 members in response to this RWP describing potential research and development to be conducted in support of the Technology Objective described herein. The White Paper due date and submittal instructions are shown on the cover page of this RWP.

2.2 White Paper Format, Content and Preparation CostA separate White Paper is required for each project seeking funding from the Government. Each White Paper must include a technical section and a cost/price section and must adhere to the format and content requirements detailed in Attachment 2 – C5 White Paper Template. Non-adherence to the C5 White Paper Template may result in rejection of the White Paper. The cost of preparing White Papers in response to this RWP is not considered a direct charge to any resulting Prototype Project or any other contract.

Section 3. White Paper Evaluation3.1 Technical Benefit Evaluation

The overall Technical Benefit rating will be based on an integrated assessment of the below Technical Benefit Evaluation factors.

1. Ability to develop, demonstrate, implement and transition a cyberspace operations integration platform solution that provides functionality to support command and control orchestration through the integration of various security technologies in the areas (not exhaustive) of attack, sensing, and warning (AS&W), incident response, incident handling, analysis, reporting, automated workflows, threat intelligence, and vulnerability management.

Ratings will be based on assessment of the following:• Adequacy, reliability, and relevancy of the proposed technological solution in meeting the minimum

requirements and objectives as outlined in this White Paper request.

2. Scientific and/or technical benefits of the approach of the White Paper.

Ratings will be based on assessment of the following:• Adequacy and relevancy of the projected scientific and/or technical benefits of the proposed

technological solution. Soundness of the technical approach, including complete and clear processes to deliver a comprehensive software solution.

• Evaluation of proposed software that is required to meet the requirements of the proposed technological solution.

• Evaluation of proposed software solution to meet the technical requirements.

3. Resources

Ratings will be based on assessment of the following:• Level of Training required of personnel to meet the requirements of the proposed technological

solution. • The availability of facilities necessary to ensure related people, processes and technologies can operate

at an appropriate classification level commensurate with applicable information or capabilities.

4. Participants

Ratings will be based on assessment of the following:• Significant participation from a Non-traditional Defense Contractor (NTDC) and/or Small Business; or• One-third cost sharing from the member company.

3 C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

3.2 Price AnalysisThe proposed price will receive a narrative assessment. The Government will perform an analysis of the costs provided in the White Paper. Each element of cost will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness and realism.

Section 4. Additional InformationResearch findings and technology developments arising from the resulting White Paper may constitute a significant enhancement to the national defense and to the economic vitality of the United States. As such, in the conduct of all work under any subsequent Technology Initiative, the recipient will comply strictly with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (22 CFR 120-130), the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) and the Department of Commerce Export Regulation (15 CFR 730-774).

Section 5. Points of ContactQuestions related to this RWP should be directed to the C5 Contract Management Office, 540-937-6300, Attn: Janeene Rider, e-mail janeene@marlinventures.com , or Lisa Bryant, e-mail lisa@marlinventures.com.

4 C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONSAuthority to use Section 815 Other Transaction Agreement

Section 815, Amendments to Other Transaction Authority, of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016, adds a new Section 2371b to chapter 10 of the U.S. Code. This section is titled “Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects.” Section 2371b authorizes the Secretary of a military department to carry out certain prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces. Appropriate use of this Authority depends on the conditions as defined below. All contractors shall complete and submit these Warranties and Representations as applicable. (Please complete the fillable form.)

1. Participants. List all participants included in the White Paper for the proposed project.

For the proposed project, the Prime Contractor hereby certifies that one of the following conditions is met:☐ (A) At least one non-traditional defense contractor (NTDC) or small business is participating to a

significant extent in the Prototype Project, or☐ (B) At least one-third of the total cost of the Prototype Project is to be paid out of funds provided by

parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government.

Prime Contractor

Prime Contractor      

NTDC (Yes/No)      

Business Size (Small/Large)      

Proposed NAICS Code*      

Prime Contractor Authorized Signature:

Typed Name & Title      

Date:      

*The proposed NAICS Code should be applicable to the specific nature of the work being proposed and, if Condition (A) is selected above, should qualify the Prime Contractor as a small business.

Additional Participants. Complete the table below for each proposed participant (other than the Prime Contractor).

Subcontractor

Subcontractor      

NTDC (Yes / No)      

Business Size (Small/Large)      

NAICS Code      

Address 1      

Address 2      

City/State/Zip plus four      

1C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

POC Name/Title      

POC Phone/Email      

Subcontractor Authorized Signature:

Typed Name & Title      

Date:      

2. Traditional Participation. If the proposed project team includes a Traditional Defense Contractor, either as the Prime Contractor or as a Subcontractor, each NTDC and/or small business proposed in the White Paper is required to complete the following section.

NTDC/Small Business

I. Please select at least one or more of the significant contribution(s) listed below that will be provided by the NTDC or small business cited above:

☐ A. The significant contribution involves developing, demonstrating or providing a key technology critical to execution of the proposed project.

Please describe what the key technology is, and why it is critical to execution of the proposed project.

     

☐ B. The significant contribution involves developing, demonstrating or providing a new part or material that is not readily available.

Please describe what the new part or material is and why it is not readily available.

     

☐ C. The significant contribution involves use of highly skilled personnel, unique facilities and/or equipment to successfully complete the proposed project.

Please describe the personnel, facilities and/or equipment required to successfully complete the project.

     

☐ D. The use of this designated NTDC or small business will cause a material reduction in the cost or schedule.

Please describe the specific cost or schedule impact to be realized.

     

☐ E. The use of this designated NTDC or small business will increase performance of the proposed prototype.

Please describe the performance increase that will be attained by the use of this designated NTDC or small business.

     

II.In addition to the above, please provide the following information:

What is the total estimated cost associated with the NTDC or small business included in the proposed White Paper? Note: While cost is an indicator for the level of NTDC/small business participation, there is no particular cost threshold required

     

Prime Contractor Authorized Signature:

Typed Name & Title:      

2C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

Date:      

3C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 1

C5 WHITE PAPER TEMPLATE

INSTRUCTIONS: Ten-page limit. Page count does not include White Paper Cover Sheet or Attachment 1 - Warranties and

Representations form(s). Electronic submission only. Times New Roman font, 10pt. (or larger), single spaced, 8.5 x 11-inch paper size. Smaller font may be

used in figures and tables but must be clearly legible. One-inch margins on all sides (top, bottom, left and right). Shaded text indicates areas for entry of information by member. Shading should be removed before

submittal of White Paper.

C5-16-RWP-13

C5 WHITE PAPER COVER SHEET

OTA Number W15QKN-14-9-0001

RWP Number: [insert RWP Number from Request for White Papers (RWP) cover page]

Proposed Project Title: [insert Title from RWP cover page]

Submittal Date: [insert White Paper submittal date]

Submitted By: [insert Consortium Member name]

Consortium Member Point of Contact:

[insert POC Name][insert POC Address, City, State Zip][insert POC Phone][insert POC Email]

Consortium Member Status: (check one)

☐ Significant Non-traditional Defense Contractor or Small Business participation

☐ Traditional Defense Contractor with Cost Share

Proposed Project Total $[insert proposed project total]

Less Cost Share $[insert amount if cost sharing applies or N/A]

Total (Less Cost Share) $[insert amount after cost share deducted]

Consortium Fee $[to be filled in by consortium]

Total ROM Cost $[to be filled in by consortium]

Signed: [insert authorized Consortium Member signature]

[insert typed name of signatory]

C5-16-RWP-13

1.0 BACKGROUND AND BENEFITS OF PROPOSED SOLUTION1.1 The purpose of the proposed solution is to [describe purpose]. The current status of [insert “current”

capabilities that are being addressed] is [insert description]. These capabilities are limited by [insert description of limitations]. [Insert description of “new” capability] is needed to overcome limitations and improve [insert specific military capabilities, efficiencies and/or sustainability].

1.2 The proposed solution provides the needed capability to overcome limitations stated above by [insert description of the technology and its innovative attributes].

1.3 The proposed solution is [clearly identify the proposed prototype. Ensure identified prototype is included as a deliverable in Section 3.0 herein].

1.4 The desired objectives are to [insert project’s objectives].1.5 This project has direct relevance to enhancing mission effectiveness or improving platform systems,

components or materiel because it [clearly state how the project has direct relevance to enhancing mission effectiveness or improving platform systems, components or materiel (or potential future applications).

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH2.1 In order to address the anticipated technical challenges and to achieve the proposed objectives,

[Consortium Member name] will [describe the work needed by phase to develop the proposed solution]. [Consortium Member name] has identified the following tasks associated with this project: [identify key tasks by phase and which team member is performing the activities] .

2.2 This project is related to a previously funded effort. [If the proposed effort is related to a previously funded effort, include a brief synopsis of what was accomplished, the previous results and how the effort builds upon the previous work. Otherwise enter “N/A”]

3.0 SCHEDULE/DELIVERABLES3.1 The total proposed project duration is [insert proposed period of performance in months] months from

project award.3.2 The project will produce [insert name and description of tangible deliverable prototype (i.e., physical or

virtual model, platform, simulation, software, report, etc.)].3.3 Estimated milestones and deliverables are listed below:

Phase Milestone DeliverableEstimated Delivery

(Weeks/Months After Award)

[insert phase]

[insert list of milestones] [insert list of deliverables associated with each milestone (at a minimum, the proposed prototype and a Final Report must be included as deliverables)]

[insert estimated lead time in terms of weeks/months after award for each milestone/deliverable]

4.0 PARTICIPANTS

*All non-traditional and small business participants shall complete a Warranties and Representations form, Attachment 1.

6C5-16-RWP-13

Participants (including

Consortium Member)

Business Classification/Size Participant Contribution Key Personnel

[insert list of all participant entities, including Consortium Member(s)]

[identify each Participant’s status as a Non-traditional Defense Contractor or Small Business, or as a Traditional Defense Contractor]

[insert detailed, quantifiable description of each participant’s contribution to the proposed effort. (For an NTDC or small business, this information shall be consistent with that included in Attachment 1, Warranties and Representations.)]

[insert list of participant’s key personnel]

The facilities where the proposed work is to be performed and the equipment or other Consortium Member property that will be utilized for the project include [insert a brief description of facilities/equipment proposed for use on the project]. 5.0 ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (ROM) COST5.1 Cost Share (if applicable) is proposed as follows:

- Cash into Project: [insert description of any proposed cash contribution(s) being made for use on the project, or insert N/A].

- In-Kind Contributions: [insert description of any proposed in-kind contribution(s) being made for use on the project, or insert N/A].

ROM CostPhase 1 – Development & Design of Concept ArchitecturePhase 2 – Delivery, Operational Field Testing & Preliminary User TrainingPhase 3 – Robust Operational Assessment and Documentation

Cost Element Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Description/Comments

Labor (Member) $ $ $ $ [insert total # of estimated labor hours]

Material/Equipment (Member) $ $ $ $ [describe proposed material/equipment]

Subcontractors/Consultants

$ $ $ $ [describe anticipated subcontracting requirements (proposed cost should include all cost elements related to the subcontractor, i.e., labor, material, ODC, travel)]

Other Direct Costs (ODC) (Member)

$ $ $ $ [describe expected ODC (outside services, conference fees, software licenses, other fees/royalties, etc.)]

Travel (Member) $ $ $ $ [describe estimated travel (e.g., travel to customer site(s) for meetings, etc.)]

Proposed Project Total $ $ $ $ [sum of cost elements]

Less Cost Share $ $ $ $ [cost share amount (if applicable)]

Total (Less Cost Share) $ $ $ $ [amount after cost share is

7C5-16-RWP-13

ROM CostPhase 1 – Development & Design of Concept ArchitecturePhase 2 – Delivery, Operational Field Testing & Preliminary User TrainingPhase 3 – Robust Operational Assessment and Documentation

Cost Element Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Description/Comments

deducted]Consortium Fee To be filled in by consortium

Total ROM Cost To be filled in by consortium

8C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 3

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Background The C5 Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), No. W15QKN-14-9-0001, was signed between the Government and C5 on 1 July 2014. Prototype Projects are funded under the base Section 845 OTA. Awards funded under this instrument are not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

Section 815 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 includes changes to the Department of Defense’s Other Transaction (OT) Authority that impact the OTA project award process. While a modification to OTA No. W15QKN-14-9-0001 and the corresponding Consortium Membership Agreement(s) (CMA) to incorporate these changes is forthcoming, certain relevant changes from Section 845 to Section 815 OT Authority are included in this RWP in order to expedite implementation.

2. Request for White Papers As described in Article I of the base OTA, the Government has issued a Request for White Papers (RWP) to C5. C5 is, in turn, issuing this RWP to C5 members. C5 members will decide whether to prepare/submit White Papers individually in response to this RWP, or to establish a team(s) comprising C5 members and one or more subcontractor(s) to prepare a team White Paper. C5 member White Papers will be submitted to C5 for review for completeness and format compliance under the RWP and then forwarded to the Government by C5. The Government solely will be responsible for evaluation of the White Papers in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein for each White Paper received in response to this RWP.

C5 member White Papers shall describe proposed Prototype Projects and how the Projects can provide an innovative solution to meet Government requirements under the Technology Objective described in Section 1 of the RWP. The Prototype Projects must advance capabilities in information technologies and be directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or for the improvement of platforms, systems, components or materials in use by the Armed Forces. The scope must include research, development, demonstration, validation or transition (including training) of the prototype technology.

3. Eligibility Only those members of C5 who have executed a C5 Consortium Membership Agreement (CMA) and are deemed to be “Members in Good Standing” by C5 management prior to the submittal of White Papers will be eligible for project funding under the OTA.

4. Non-traditional Defense Contractor/Small Business Participation or Cost-Share Commitment As a result of the changes to OT Authority set forth in Section 815 of the NDAA for FY16, each Prototype Project awarded under an OTA must meet at least one of the following conditions:

(A) There is at least one Non-traditional Defense Contractor or small business participating to a significant extent in the Prototype Project, or

(B) At least one-third of the total cost of the Prototype Project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government.

5. Non-traditional Defense Contractor Definition A Non-traditional Defense Contractor is an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the issuance of this Request for White Papers by the Department of Defense, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost-accounting standards prescribed pursuant to Section 1502 of Title 41 of the U.S. Code and the regulations implementing such section. (Full CAS coverage is required only for contracts greater than $50 million. Firm-fixed price contracts typically are exempt from all CAS requirements regardless of dollar value.)

1C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 3

6. Small Business Definition A company is considered a small business based upon its applicable North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) designation (as described at 13 C.F.R. §121.201) for the specific nature of the work being proposed. Because contracts and subcontracts with small businesses are exempt from all of the FAR-based cost accounting standards (“CAS”), small businesses are deemed NTDCs under Section 815.

7. Cost-Share Requirements Cost share is not a mandatory requirement. However, if a White Paper does not contain at least one Non-traditional Defense Contractor or small business participating to a significant extent, then it is anticipated that the White Paper will propose at least one-third of the total project cost as cost share.

8. Cost-Sharing Definition Cost sharing is defined as the resources expended by the member and/or participant(s) on the proposed Statement of Work (SOW) and subject to the direction of the project management. If cost sharing is proposed, then the member shall state the amount that is being proposed and whether the cost sharing is a cash contribution or an in-kind contribution, as discussed below. If the offer contains multiple team members, this information shall be provided for each team member providing cost share.

Cost sharing includes any costs a reasonable person would incur to carry out (necessary to) Prototype Project SOWs not directly paid for by the Government. There are two types of cost sharing:

(1) Cash: Outlays of funds to perform the Prototype Project. Cash includes labor, materials, new equipment and relevant subcontractor efforts. Sources include new independent research and development (IR&D) funds, profit or fee from another contract, overhead or capital equipment expense pool. New IR&D funds offered to be spent on the project SOW and subject to the direction of the project management may be utilized as cost share.

(2) In-Kind: Reasonable value of in-place equipment, materials or other property used in performance of the Prototype Project. All cash or in-kind cost-sharing availability must be clearly and convincingly demonstrated by the proposing member(s). Members will be required to provide financial reporting with appropriate visibility into expenditures of Government funds vs. private funds. Parallel research that might be related to the Prototype Project, but will not be part of the SOW or subject to the direction of the project management will not be considered for cost sharing. All costs, fees, profits, G&A, bid and proposal costs or intellectual property value incurred prior to Prototype Project selection will not be accepted.

9. White Paper Evaluation and SelectionIt is the Government's intention to negotiate, select and fund the "best value" project(s) from the submitted White Paper(s), and as a result of the Phase Two, Technical Discussion Exchange (if applicable), that best matches the customer’s requirements. The Government Acquisition Center, with the assistance of the ALO, will undertake White Paper Selection. White Paper Selection will be conducted in accordance with Government procedures and the evaluation criteria detailed herein. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make a determination whether to: a) Select the White Paper(s) (or some portion of the White Paper(s)), or b) Reject the White Paper (no selection will be made based upon the submitted White Paper).

If a two-phase process is employed, White Papers that have been selected for further consideration as a result of Phase One Technical Benefit Factor Ratings may be sent additional instructions and evaluation criteria for Phase Two. At the conclusion of Phase Two, selection of a White Paper(s) for further consideration will be made.

The SSA determination will be forwarded to C5. If a White Paper(s) is selected, the Government will develop an SOW and issue a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) to C5. C5 then will issue an RPP to the C5 member(s) whose White Paper(s) was/were selected by the Government for prototype proposal submittal. The Government will perform a technical evaluation of the final proposal(s) to ensure it meets the requirements of the Government SOW and then proceed with award of the project based on availability of funding.

10. Basis for SelectionThe basis for selection of a White Paper(s) as a result of this RWP will be an integrated assessment conducted by the Government based upon two evaluation factors—Technical Benefit and Price. The Technical Benefit factor rating will be based on a numerical ranking system supported by narrative justification. The Price rating will be a narrative

2C5-16-RWP-13

Attachment 3

assessment. The basis of selection will be made, and negotiations may be conducted with the proposing C5 member(s).

If applicable, the Government will weigh any increase in the Technical Benefit against cost/price to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of the higher cost/price for the Technical Benefit, and this determination will be reflected in the overall ranking of the White Paper. White Papers will be ranked as follows:

Outstanding: White Paper meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable: White Paper meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable: White Paper does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. White Paper is not awardable.

11. Price Analysis The Government will perform a price analysis of the member White Paper(s) in accordance with the following factors.

Completeness: The degree to which the member has provided all price information requested in the RWP. Please note that pricing information is required to properly perform a price analysis of the White Paper. If an offeror is unwilling to provide this information in a timely manner, the White Paper will be lacking information that is required to properly evaluate the White Paper, and the White Paper cannot be selected.

Reasonableness: A proposed price will be considered “reasonable” based upon subjective judgments. To be considered reasonable, the member’s price should be developed from applicable historical data, be clearly stated, valid and suitable. The offeror should show that sound, rational judgment was used in deriving and applying price methodologies. Appropriate narrative explanation and justification should be provided for the price elements. The overall estimate should be presented in a coherent, organized and systematic manner.

Realism: The proposed price is “realistic” when it is neither excessive nor insufficient for the effort to be accomplished. Prices also must be realistic for each task of the proposed project when compared to the total proposed price. Determination will be made by directly comparing proposed prices with comparable current and historical data, available quotes, etc. and will be based on evaluator experience. The proposed price will be compared with the corresponding proposed technical approach for consistency.

3C5-16-RWP-13