Index

Future Combat Systems Solicitation

(FINAL)

Table of Contents

  1. BACKGROUND
  2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
  3. SYSTEM(S) PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS
  4. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (Design Concepts Phase)
  5. INFORMATION FOR OFFERORS
  6. EVALUATION CRITERIA

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has teamed with the United States Army, to conceive a new capability for the Army called the Future Combat Systems (FCS). To make our ground force more effective in the new millennium, the Government, teamed with Industry, must develop the capability to rapidly project a dominant ground force anywhere in the world within days. This strategically deployable, tactically superior and sustainable force will provide a quick reaction capability to our country as conflicts arise in the 21st century. This requisite capability may require advanced technologies, a revolution in both strategy and tactics, and innovative Industrial teaming. We need your help to mold our Army’s future by identifying, maturing and integrating these advanced enabling technologies, then working with the military to optimize their use as part of the FCS. This is a unique opportunity to develop a system of systems design starting with a "clean sheet of paper" that will separate the manned C2 Vehicle from the sensors and separate robotic firing platforms to develop a strategically deployable, affordable force for the 2012-2025 timeframe and beyond. This program will consider and evaluate key promising combat vehicle technologies such as lethality, propulsion, mobility, survivability, robotics, ergonomic, and C4ISR technologies for inclusion into potential combat vehicle platforms, with an objective of identifying the most promising candidates for a development program to begin by fiscal year 2006. The FCS program will not exclude any promising technologies which are on a parallel development path which could later be inserted during the course of production and/or as part of Pre-Planned Product Improvements (P3I). Key to this effort will be the Systems Concept. A significant element will be the development of a technology roadmap for the Army to use in the eventual production of the FCS. The program is wide reaching in scope, requiring vision, innovation and capability in multiple disciplines involving force, system(s), and technology development to maximize the effectiveness of future combat soldiers while optimizing total ownership cost.

1.1.1 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), FY2000-2005 outlines our joint vision to develop a truly flexible, effective and efficient multi-mission force capable of projecting overwhelming military power worldwide. This force must ultimately provide our national leaders with increased options in responding to potential crises and conflicts. To satisfy this requirement, defense guidance calls for a Land Force Development Program to provide enhancements in land force lethality, survivability, mobility, deployability, situational awareness and command and control capabilities.

1.2 The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is envisioned as a Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) program, which DARPA will implement as the Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements, and Training (SMART) Program, and will maximize the use of modeling and simulation throughout its lifecycle to optimize the force, define requirements, demonstrate performance, reduce risk and reach a balance of performance and cost (both acquisition and lifecycle). Through modeling and simulation (M&S), Industry and Government teams will be able to assess tough questions early on and continuously throughout the process, while keeping the trade space open; including the design trade space, doctrine development options, and training options. Using this approach, Industry and the Government can also explore the advantages that different technologies can deliver in a variety of scenarios. Because these simulations will not be bound by current technology and doctrine limitations, it will be possible to propose capabilities that do not yet exist, model them, and evaluate proposed solutions, and in turn, refine the requirements. Simultaneously, while equipment is being designed to meet performance requirements, many of these same models and simulations will be used to develop the doctrine, tactics and training requirements for employing the proposed force concepts. Selected teams will have the freedom to conceptualize both novel materiel and force constructs best suited to achieve the emerging desired capabilities of a future strategically deployable, tactically superior, and significantly more sustainable FCS force. Industry’s interactive participation in this endeavor could assure that the Army realizes its vision.

1.3 A critical element of the program is the use of "Industry teams" that cut across organization boundaries to achieve optimal mixes of technical talent. To facilitate the role of teams, the program will be executed as an "Other Transaction for Prototypes" under Section 845, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, as amended. This flexible authority permits wide latitude in tailoring business, organizational, and technical relationships to achieve the program goals. This tool allows the flexibility to use business and technical practices as desired. As a byproduct, it also has important implications for the structure of this solicitation, the breadth of issues prospective offering teams must consider, and the actual proposal structure itself.

1.3.1 Multiple awards are expected to be made to Industry teams for the initial 24-month Design Concepts Phase. The Government expects to fund each agreement at $10 million, subject to the availability of funds. In addition to Government funding, Industry team cost sharing is encouraged. For example, cost sharing could be in the form of capital.

1.4 The Future Combat Systems (FCS) solution will not be a single vehicle system. While it may turn out that the functional and tactical requirements for FCS can be achieved by a single vehicle system or platform, it is equally reasonable to think that the requirements may best be met by one or more vehicle system sets. What is sacrosanct is that the FCS program

responds to the Chief of Staff, Army's vision:

"The world situation demands an Army that is strategically responsive… [T]he Army must be capable of operating throughout the range of conflict–to include low intensity operations and countering asymmetric threats. It must, therefore, be more versatile, agile, lethal, and survivable…Achieving this paradigm will require innovative thinking about structure, modernization, efforts, and spending."

1.4.1 In order to arrive at a materiel solution that is both strategically responsive while providing a more versatile, agile, lethal and survivable combat system, it is envisioned that the FCS will perform the same general missions as performed by today’s platforms, but potential trades may be acceptable if justified. The FCS could be a distributed network centric system with all of the functionality necessary to be successful on the modern battlefield distributed among multiple vehicle elements whose capabilities sum to the capabilities necessary for victory in all forms of combat. This versatility will be realized through emphasis on an open architecture system concept, with an easily upgradeable and tailorable design approach to enable the system to engage in different missions as needed.

1.4.2 Some key areas of interest that appear to require significant technological advances are: (1) Network Command and Control of Direct and Indirect Fire Robotic Systems, (2) High Speed Robotic Navigation, (3) Anti-Jamming (Guaranteed Communication) Networks, (4) Network Security for Command and Control of Distributed Robotic Systems and (5) Control of Robotic Sensors. These areas are of great concern to the overall success of the FCS program.

1.5 To accomplish this vision, the US House Armed Services Committee recognizes that "…decisive action must be made now to redress the armor system modernization dilemma". The Army Science Board has stated that this can’t be achieved through conventional means:

An FCS force would provide a significant new capability…. and an FCS-based force will not be able to fight like a traditional mechanized force. It will have to rely on innovative operational concepts.

In addition, the FCS Senior Advisory Group in September 1999 identified four desired integrated capabilities for the FCS: network centric, robotics integration into the force, capable of air-mobile operation, and increased reliance on extended range engagement.

2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

2.1 The objective of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) effort is to develop lightweight (no individual element greater than 20 tons), overwhelmingly lethal, strategically deployable, self-sustaining and survivable combat and combat support force, systems and supporting technologies for the 2012-2025 timeframe and beyond. Additionally, it is anticipated that the aggregate force will be significantly (at least 50%) lighter than the existing force structure at equivalent force level. The Future Combat Systems will be a single multi-functional system (or system of systems) which optimizes performance of the force leveraging on the advanced technologies (with the capability to incorporate future advances).

2.2 Program Plan. To accomplish the development of this revolutionary force in concert with the Chief of Staff’s vision, DARPA and the Army have structured a multi-phased program with the vision of using the "Other Transaction for Prototype " authority from the Design Concepts Phase; Engineering Manufacturing and Development; through production (if approved).

2.2.1 FCS Program Summary. The overall FCS program is designed to develop technological concepts/solutions for the Army’s Objective Force. The overall schedule for the DARPA/Army Program is depicted in the diagram below. The period of performance covered in this solicitation is represented as that part called "Design Competition — Concept Development/Modeling and Simulation" on the line entitled "System". This is the Design Concepts Phase described in paragraph 2.2.2, below. It is the government’s intent to compete the ideas for the FCS System design during this phase of the program. The government discourages exclusive teaming during this phase. Additionally, the government intends to have each offeror present a preliminary technology need description (this is the System Designer’s opportunity to describe technology shortfalls to DARPA and the Army) to support the industry day for the technology thrusts described in paragraph 2.2.1.1, below. The next phase is the Demonstration (Demo) Phase, describe in paragraph 2.2.3, below. It is represented in the diagram as the elements labeled "Preliminary Design" and "Detailed Design and Build" on the diagram. It is the intention of the government to not lock in the technologies of the total system design until the end of the Preliminary Design part of the Demo Phase of the program. It is also the government’s intention to encourage re-teaming, potentially allowing the inclusion of members from the technology teams (described in paragraph 2.2.1.1, below), at the start of the Preliminary Design Phase to ensure that the government gets the best technological solutions possible to meets the needs of this program. The final part of the demo phase of the DARPA/Army Program, leading to the program entering EMD as an Army Program, is the element labeled "Detailed Design and Build". This phase is the actual prototype phase of the program and entails the production of a system of systems prototype of the FCS Design Competition.

2.2.1.1 Technology Risk Reduction. Parallel to the systems design effort will be several competitive technology risk reduction efforts that will be investigated separately either by DARPA (shown below) or by the Army. The DARPA efforts will be solicited for separately in future research announcements (RAs) or broad agency announcements (BAAs). Each of the DARPA technology areas will involve at least two competing contractors who will report performance metrics, technology designs and test results in Integrated Open Reviews (IOR) to the systems concept developers so that they can be used in support of the overall FCS system design. It is the intention of the government that the systems concept developers being competed for in this solicitation would consider whether and how parallel DARPA and Army technology efforts can be integrated into the FCS program.

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.2 Design Concepts Phase. Four awards are expected for the 24 month FCS Design Concepts Phase which will mold the FCS force through the development of revolutionary force and system concepts along with supporting technologies. The selection of Industry teams for the Design Concepts Phase will be the overall best value based on; the ability to develop a deployable, effective, and supportable force that meets the objectives of this solicitation; the effectiveness and innovation in the management approach including teaming and schedule; and the reasonableness and completeness of cost. System Integrators/team leaders should conduct teaming without exclusive relationships at the major sub-system level. Exclusive teaming is discouraged to allow System Integrators/team leaders to consider all competing component technologies at anytime through the Design Concept Phase and early in the Demonstration Phase.

2.2.2.1 Intellectual Property

Unlimited Rights in Intellectual Property are desired but lower intellectual property rights will be considered if sufficient justification and cost benefit to the government can be demonstrated.

2.2.3 Demonstration (Demo) Phase. The Demonstration Phase will be competed to facilitate re-teaming for the purpose of capturing high payoff technologies that would enhance overall system performance. The Demonstration Phase will highlight and showcase the new capabilities of the concepts in a virtual and real environment. This phase is planned to start in 1QFY02 and continue through 4QFY05. Based on the results of the Demonstration Phase, one or more teams may be selected to enter into the follow-on development phase(s).

2.2.3.1 Proposal for Demo Phase. A solicitation for the Demonstration Phase will be issued approximately six months before the end of the Design Concepts Phase. Detailed evaluation criteria will be provided in the Demo solicitation. Preliminary evaluation considerations for the force and system(s) concepts are shown in Attachment 1. It is the Government’s intent to transition the Design Concepts Phase to the Demonstration Phase without interruption.

2.2.4 Follow on Phases. The Government intends to use the products of this Design Concepts Phase to conduct a decision review on whether to continue with demonstration and follow-on development of the Future Combat Systems program, or to defer the decision to a later date and pursue technology programs and interim upgrades to the Army’s legacy systems. Beyond the Demonstration Phase the Government reserves the right to structure follow-on efforts as appropriate based on the nature of the concepts evolved in the program.

2.2.5 Management Approach. DARPA is responsible for overall management of the Design Concepts Phase of the FCS program, including technical direction, acquisition, and security. The Program Manager (PM), DARPA, and Deputy Program Manager (DPM), Army, are responsible for implementing a streamlined approach to program management. Major tenets of that approach include: close cooperation between Government and Industry teams, small staffs, abbreviated oversight, face-to-face communication, real-time decision making, emphasis on problem solving, and short direct lines of authority. Other responsibilities are as follow:

  1. Selected personnel from Army Research, Development and Engineering Centers (RDECs) and Federal Labs are responsible for providing expert technical advice to the FCS program as requested by the PM and DPM.
  2. Selected personnel from TRADOC will provide operational expertise and insight throughout the program. To date, they have participated in the definition (or Mission Needs Statement) of the FCS program and will be incorporating the program into their long-range plans. Each stage of the FCS program will see extensive User input and coordination.
  3. Selected personnel from Army modeling and simulation commands will assist the Government team by verifying the Industry teams' mission effectiveness and affordability analysis.

2.2.5.1 The Government team will work closely with the members of the Industry team to provide information, technical assistance, and additional expertise as required to assist in the successful execution of the program.

2.2.5.2 Each team, while responsible for the management and technical direction of their program, should also commit to a similar open, collaborative, teaming relationship with the Government. The team will define a system engineering/program management approach that will foster this type of relationship and provide the highest probability for success throughout both the Demo Phase and any follow-on phases.

2.2.5.3 The Government and Industry teams will interact on a variety of formal and informal levels throughout the program. Interaction is required not only for the Government to receive the information required to meet its fiscal and management responsibilities, but to allow the Government to provide value-added feedback and insight to the Industry team. By the same token, this interaction will assure that the Industry teams understand and are responsive to the Army’s needs for the future.

2.2.5.3.1 Government Sponsored Red Team Reviews. A Red Team will review the emerging results from the Industry teams from the perspective of a potential opponent and will identify any potential weaknesses in the teams approach. The Red Team will acquire information through normal program reviews and/ or potential meetings with Industry and will provide feedback to the Program Manager and Industry as needed.

2.2.5.3.2 Government will establish high level metrics that will be crossed briefed at Integrated Open Reviews by both technical and systems concept developers to communicate to all teams the "relative performance" of all concepts being proposed in an attempt to foster competition between teams. While these metrics may change over time as the government develops greater understanding of theses concepts, care will be taken to ensure the metrics do not communicate or attempt to normalize concepts. Initially these metrics will be: estimated force effectiveness, estimated system lethality, estimated probability of enemy detection, estimated maximum entity weight, estimated time to deploy, estimated manpower requirements, and estimated brigade size force cost.

3. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS

3.1 The FCS force must be capable of conducting a wide range of military activities and operations, from deterring large-scale aggression, to participating in smaller-scale contingencies, to dealing with asymmetric threats like terrorism, information operations and nuclear, biological or chemical environments. FCS will be a multifunctional system or system of systems based on advanced technologies that facilitate enhanced capabilities in lethality, survivability, situational awareness, mobility, deployability, supportability, and sustainment. Advanced technologies potentially provide major improvements in system/ capability performance and effectiveness, thereby impacting the operational and organizational concept of how the Army fights. The FCS will be lighter, more transportable and deployable with characteristics that will enable the force to be projected anywhere on the globe within 36-48 hours and be capable of conducting operations (without pause for preparation) to dominate and defeat a mission-based Threat. These systems must be capable of fighting in all environments, by day or night, in adverse weather conditions, and operating in complex urban terrain including negotiating barricades, roadblocks, city rubble, man-made and non man-made craters, and narrow passages.

3.2 The performance objectives for the Future Combat Systems are described in two User developed draft documents:

a. Draft Mission Needs Statement for the Future Combat Systems (see Attachment 2)

b. Draft Future Combat Systems Terms of Reference (see Attachment 3)

3.2.1 Critical size and weight requirements. The Government requires that all FCS design solutions developed must meet two critical requirements as described below. Note that neither of these requirements is tradable against any other cost or performance objective, but must be met in every case.

3.2.1.1 Each system developed must weigh no more than 20 tons in a combat ready configuration.

3.2.1.2 Each system developed must be able to be transported in a combat ready configuration in all current and projected C130 series of transport aircraft, meeting all the necessary dimensional, weight, and other requirements as referenced in http://www.tea-army.org/dpe/Aircraft.htm#C130.

3.3 This program is in early development with draft requirements documents that should be considered as the starting point for the teams’ development of the force and system(s) concepts. It is expected that the products of this program will provide input for the refinement of the requirements documents and operational concepts as described in paragraph 4.2.

3.4 Missions. The FCS should be capable, as a minimum, of addressing the missions, as described below. The intent of these definitions is to define a frame-work for battlefield tasks as they may conceptually relate to force structure constructs and concepts for a system of systems Future Combat Systems (FCS). While there are three levels of war, the initial FCS construct is defined around the tactical level of war so as to begin a building block approach for future unit designs be they platoons, companies, battalions, brigades, squadrons or some new units that may variously be constructed, such as a cohort or a legion or a phalanx. Current Battlefield Operating Systems provide a good starting point and it is only intended that these provide a refresher in this regard not a limiting paradigm. While this is provided as a framework, it is not to be interpreted as doctrine - it is provided as a starting point.

3.4.1 Direct Fire. The ability to immediately acquire, engage and kill a wide variety of targets (moving and stationary) with indigenous means.

3.4.2 Indirect Fire. The ability to acquire and engage targets (moving and stationary) beyond line of sight.

3.4.3 Air Defense. The ability to protect the force from air attacks, rockets, artillery, mortars, and aerial observation.

3.4.4 Reconnaissance. The act of finding the enemy, maintaining contact and reporting pertinent battlefield information.

3.4.5 Troop Transport. The act of carrying or moving soldiers in a protected environment within an area of operation.

3.4.6 Non-Lethal. The means to subdue, detain, incapacitate, or otherwise cause an adversary to submit to the will of someone, without the use of lethal force.

3.4.7 Mobility/Countermobility. In the offense, it is the ability to move along any route of one’s choosing. In the defense, it is the ability to deny an enemy the freedom of movement along a given route (or routes).

3.4.8 Command and Control. The ability to plan, synchronize and control the battle. Situational awareness and situational understanding are implied sub-components of command and control.

3.4.9 Support Missions.

3.4.9.1 Combat Support. All direct and general support activities that serve as combat multipliers and/or enablers such as medical evacuation, force protection, traffic assistance, etc.

3.4.9.2 Combat Service Support. All logistics support functions that maintain and sustain the fighting force. Includes all supply, maintenance, and personnel functions necessary to sustain the force.

3.5 Baseline Force. The Government will compare force effectiveness of the teams’ force against the performance of a baseline force of a digitized Armored Cavalry Regiment. Scenario(s) will be used to determine force effectiveness (e.g. system losses, loss exchange ratio, survivability, etc.). A description of the missions, baseline(s), scenarios (one in an interactive model and one in a non-interactive model) and Threats will be provided at agreement award. Similar descriptions for three additional scenarios in two non-interactive models, one of which is the same model as indicated above, will be provided 14 months after agreement award.

4. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (Design Concepts Phase).

4.1 This solicitation invites proposals for performance of the Design Concepts Phase of the FCS development program. Teams' proposals for performance of Design Concepts work should describe specifically how the Industry team will perform the tasks required during this Phase. The following tasks described within this section are notional and viewed as the minimum required.

4.2 Ongoing Requirements Exploration and Needed Performance Description. Each multi-disciplined team, in coordination with the US Army Training and Doctrine Command although ultimate decisions remain with the Industry team, will perform a functional decomposition of all combat functions necessary to be successful on the modern battlefield and propose necessary element and organizational behavioral changes necessary with the proposed force. Each team will identify all of the technologies, missions and tasks necessary to conduct the range of combat operations anticipated for the FCS, how they intend to accomplish them and the necessary interfaces with other organizational elements. Specifically, the teams should prepare a system architecture that describes the relationships between functions, the systems that accomplish those functions, and the relationship between the systems. Current, emerging, and future combined arms Army doctrine, requirements and emerging Threats should be considered.

4.2.1 The deliverables for this task are briefing(s) at the review meetings and a final report (see 4.8.6) summarizing the activities listed above. The "first order" system architecture should be made available to the Government at the first review meeting and through an Integrated Data Environment (IDE).

4.3 Technology Survey and Assessment. Each team will develop a technology survey and assessment for application to the FCS considering the items listed below. Technologies will be considered from a variety of sources including but not limited to Army, DARPA, other services, Department of Energy, commercial sector, and foreign sources. Activities to be performed include:

a. Identify and/ or propose key technologies to support force and system(s) needs. In all cases, two or more competitive approaches to the major sub-systems and technologies will be evaluated for every functionality deemed necessary. Special emphasis will be given to ensure technology solutions from outside the Industry teams are given fair evaluation and consideration in the development of all concepts.

b. Identify and describe an existing technology development program or, for proposed technologies, identify and describe a new technology development program with associated funding requirements in support of the FCS.

c. Assess key technologies in terms of capabilities, benefits and burdens including key technology characteristics and performance objectives.

d. Assess cost, schedule, and performance risk for each technology including evaluations and projections of when technologies are expected to mature.

e. Detail the influence of the technologies on the force and vehicle system(s).

f. Identify candidate technologies for Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) beyond the fielding date of the FCS and include assessment on the implications to the force and systems.

g. Qualitatively assess the applicability and impact of technologies to the Abrams and Bradley Family of Vehicles for potential upgrades.

4.3.1 The deliverables for this task are briefing(s) at the review meetings and a final report (see 4.8.6) summarizing the activities listed above.

4.4 Tradeoff Assessment. Each team will perform tradeoff assessment(s) identifying cost, schedule and performance tradeoffs for the force, system(s) and technologies and performing any necessary analysis and M&S activities to validate and establish rationale for the results.

4.4.1 A listing of some common M&S tools (not all inclusive) used in development programs can be found on the World Wide Web at the following sites: "www.msrr.army.mil" and "http:\\amsaa-explorer.arl.mil". In addition, the teams will identify the state-of-the-art analysis and M&S techniques available, their advantages and disadvantages, areas where simulation tools are insufficient to illustrate their concepts, and advanced modeling techniques required for the Design Concepts and follow-on Demonstration Phase.

4.4.2 The Government will provide a description of two missions, two scenarios, two Threats, and the associated baseline(s) at agreement award. Similar descriptions for three additional scenarios in two non-interactive models, one of which is the same model indicated above, will be provided 14 months after agreement award. The two missions/scenarios, two Threats, and baseline(s) (descriptions provided at agreement award) with their associated Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) will be loaded in one interactive and one non-interactive force effectiveness computer models for availability to Industry teams at two months after agreement award. Government personnel will be available to run the models for the teams, or teams may elect to run the models for themselves.

4.4.3 Each team is encouraged to consider a relationship with Army RDECs and Federal Labs to transfer and integrate existing accepted modeling and simulation tools and/or utilize the available expertise and resources. The offeror will document the Memoranda of Agreement/ Understanding, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), or other instruments that leverage Government facilities, resources, and/ or manpower. The offeror will incorporate signed agreements from all Government agencies with which they have negotiated support or have leveraged agreements. Each of these agreements must define the scope of the support provided by the Government, cost, terms and conditions, and period of performance. An authorized representative of the Government agency making the commitment must sign each agreement. Within the offeror’s proposal, all leveraging agreements should be referenced, where appropriate, the dependence of the program on this agreement defined, and the proposed fallback or alternative approaches identified. These agreements are between the Industry Team and the government support organization which includes all provisions including funding and payment.

4.4.4 The deliverables for this task are briefing(s) at the review meetings and a final report (see 4.8.6) summarizing the activities listed above, and access to the modeling and simulation data through an Integrated Data Environment (see paragraph 4.8.2)

4.5 Initial Force and System(s) Concepts. Each team will develop at least two force concepts with recommended doctrine and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures along with associated rationale based on their tradeoff assessment. These will be developed in coordination with the User. One concept must be a network centric distributed force consisting of a manned command and control element/troop carrier, a robotic direct fire system, a robotic non-line of sight system, an all weather robotic sensor platform, and integrated unmanned aerial sensor platforms conceived to be available in 2012. The other will be a separate and distinct concept of the offeror’s own design conceived to be available in 2012. The Industry team’s concept may be composed and comprised as they deem appropriate. For both concepts, each team should fully describe the system(s) level concepts, the appropriate integrated technologies and the associated risk of each concept. The concepts will include:

Description of necessary organizational structure and behavioral changes necessary to exploit/leverage the new technologies proposed as part of the force, and supporting rationale.

  1. System(s) concept designs including computer generated geometric database, system characteristics, and weight analysis. System(s) concepts should show how P3I technology candidates would be incorporated into the design. It is expected that the detail in the geometric database will increase over time from general concepts initially to detailed designs.
  1. Identification of key technologies in support of systems and the supporting technology investment strategy to attain them. As described in paragraph 4.3.a., each team will identify, as a minimum, two or more technologies for every functionality.
  2. Description of system characteristics allowing for technology upgrades and mission tailoring.
  3. Identification of the deployability attributes, benefits and burdens of the force. Teams must develop a plan for strategic deployment of the force to include transportability (with discussion on footprint and weight characteristics), time to deploy, number of sorties, etc.
  1. Sustainability and supportability attributes of the force; to include logistics burdens and improvements, necessary infrastructure changes, necessary technology investments, etc. Concepts must address level of imbedded diagnostics and prognostics, as well as self- repair capability. An estimate of the level of reduction of logistics requirements (in comparison to the baseline structure) must be included.
  2. Identification and assessment of the differences between the force and system(s) concepts and contrast these concepts with the baseline.
  3. Identification of the force, system, technology, soldier related cost and soldier-system performance drivers for manning the future force in comparison to the baseline force
  4. A training system/capability for the soldier as well as maintenance. The system training concepts are encouraged to be imbedded, minimizing additional equipment and manpower requirements. In addition, the cost of training should be addressed as well as the advantages/ disadvantages of virtual vs. actual operation of the equipment during training operations.
  5. Identification of any necessary interfaces with other services (e.g. Air Force, Navy, Marines, etc.).

k. Identification of how a given force concept will interact with allied forces (e.g., Canadian, British, German, etc.).

4.5.1 The deliverables for this task are briefing(s) at the review meetings and a final report (see 4.8.6) summarizing the activities listed above, and access to the modeling and simulation data through an Integrated Data Environment (see paragraph 4.8.2). The system(s) concepts with their supporting data (see 4.5 b) will be submitted to the Government for a Preliminary Concept/Integration Assessment five months after agreement award.

4.6 Initial Force and System(s) Concepts Characterization. Each team will quantify the performance of the initial force and system(s) concepts and will develop data, providing rationale and sources of data, pertaining to their force and system(s) concepts which will be used in Government assessments as described in Section 4.7.

4.6.1 The deliverables for this task are: properly formatted data with associated rationale; briefing(s) at the review meetings and a final report (see 4.8.6) summarizing the activities listed above, accessible through an IDE.

4.7 Force Concept. At 14 months after agreement award, the Government will select the force and system(s) concepts from the initial force and system(s) concepts for use in Government developed scenarios and models. The experiments will use all of the missions, scenarios, Threats and associated baseline(s) referenced in section 4.4.2.

4.7.1 The deliverables for this task are briefing(s) at review meetings and a final report (see 4.8.6) summarizing the recommended force and system(s) concepts and access to properly formatted modeling and simulation data through an Integrated Data Environment by 14 months after award. In addition, each team will submit to the Government the supporting data associated with the system(s) concepts, via an IDE, including: geometric database, system characteristics, and weight analysis, for a Final Concept/Integration Assessment Study at 14 months after agreement award.

4.8 Additional Tasks

4.8.1 Program Plan. To assist the Government in defining follow-on budgets and tasks, teams should include a program plan with milestones in date/year which cover the entire FCS program from Design Concepts through Production. The plan will include force, system and technology development and M&S activities. It is expected that for the "Design Concepts" Phase, the schedule will be detailed with the subsequent phases being somewhat increasingly notional. This plan will be updated as the program progresses to account for such things as emerging technologies and force development.

4.8.1.1 The deliverable for this task is a program plan outlining the tasks above including key lower-level tasks and a schedule of pertinent program reviews, which are initially provided in the proposal and are updated as required.

These should be accessible through an IDE.

4.8.2 Integrated Data Environment. The teams will make available to the Government an ability to easily contribute their ideas, comments and suggestions, exchange program information and collaborate in a distributed environment. The teams should establish, maintain and manage an interactive, online, protected and access controlled Integrated Data Environment (IDE). The IDE will include structured repositories for information and program databases. The IDE will include all data related to the team’s concepts and analysis process (including CAD representations of all designs), as well as program management. The IDE will be able to exchange data with selected models and simulations and other Government data sources. The Industry team will provide all of the necessary implementation to ensure that the Government team is able to interface with the team as required.

4.8.3 Kickoff Meeting and Reviews. The team will schedule a program kickoff meeting and approximately quarterly reviews as consistent as possible with the program deliverables listed in section 4.

4.8.4 There will be a Technology Investment Review meeting at six months after agreement award covering the following topics: teams identification of a technology investment strategy, recommendation of key technologies required for FCS realization and associated status and rationale, and identification of any deficiencies in the current technology base.

4.8.5 Program Quarterly Technical and Fiscal Status Reports. The teams will submit monthly technical and financial status reports. The technical report will highlight the technical activities of the month. The fiscal status report will include data for both the total program as well as the same information for each of the team members. The fiscal status report will include the following information: available Government funds, Industry teams' investment, planned monthly expenditures (graphically presented for the contract duration with the first financial report), planned cumulative expenditures (graphically presented for the contract duration with the first financial report), actual monthly expenditures, actual cumulative expenditures, total monthly expenditures (includes actuals + commitments), and total cumulative expenditures (includes actuals + commitments).

4.8.6 Program Summary Briefing and Report. The Design Concepts Phase will conclude with a summary briefing by each team by 14 months after award, and a subsequent consolidated report delivered by 24 months after award. As a minimum, these final deliverables should include the topics addressed in the tasks above. This information will be available via an Integrated Data Environment.

4.9 Security. Some aspects of this program will require access to classified material and the development of classified information. Teams are required to have a facility clearance of at least top secret and be able to store classified information at the top secret level for this program.

5. INFORMATION FOR OFFERORS

5.1 This Design Concepts Phase is intended as the Concept Definition Phase of the overall FCS program aimed at the design and development of FCS force structure, system(s) and technology. This phase will potentially lead to a Demonstration Phase. Detailed structure of subsequent efforts depends on the results of the earlier phases of the program.

5.2 Program Schedule and Deliverables. Using the guidelines presented in this solicitation, Industry is free to define the approach and flow of the program in their proposed Statement of Objectives as appropriate to maximize innovation and quality of results. Offering teams must include an integrated set of technical and payable milestones, accomplishment criteria, and deliverables in their proposed agreements to show how they intend to execute the program which should be consistent with the proposed milestone schedule in accordance with paragraph 4.8.1. Government participation in the program will then follow the same structure.

5.2.1 Program Milestones. The proposed payable milestones from the Industry teams' proposal will be inserted in the Statement of Objectives. The team will schedule a program kickoff meeting and approximately quarterly reviews as consistent as possible with the program deliverables listed in section 4.

5.3 Solicitation and Awards Schedule. The notional schedule for solicitation and award of the FCS agreements is:

Industry Brief 11 January 2000

Industry Comments Received on Draft Solicitation 13 January 2000

Formal Solicitation 31 January 2000

Proposals Due 17 March 2000

Evaluation Complete/Selection Decision 18 April 2000

Agreements Awarded 01 May 2000

5.4 Programmatic Structure. The Design Concepts Phase will be conducted over a period of 24 months by competing Industry teams selected from the proposals received in response to this solicitation. Each successful offering team will be awarded a Design Concepts Agreement not to exceed $10M. Corporate investment in addition to this amount is encouraged. The Government reserves the right to postpone or cancel the program should it receive an insufficient number of proposals of adequate merit. The Government reserves the right to make award selections without discussions.

5.5 The following general guidelines-which apply to both the Government and Industry teams-are intended to govern the execution of the FCS program:

5.5.1 Since a major departure from past thinking may produce the most dramatic progress, all aspects of the program will be tailored to foster a strong spirit of innovation.

5.5.2 To improve the quality of the final product, the program will exploit competition among the various concepts based on technical and operational merit.

5.5.3 Innovation will be suitably balanced with technical practicality and risk mitigation to strengthen the viability of the developed concepts.

5.5.4 Innovative business arrangement and lean management practices will be used to enhance the creativity of the program’s talent base. These methods will contribute to program results that are both cost effective and timely.

5.5.5 To improve communication during the concept development process, the teams will implement their Integrated Data Environment (IDE) , linking all involved parties.

5.5.6 To foster Industry-Government teaming, it is envisioned that the FCS effort will use an Integrated Product Team approach, where Government and Industry representatives are teamed together to accomplish the mission.

5.5.7 Partnering with Federal and National Laboratories. Offerors are strongly encouraged to consider leveraging the considerable technology and M&S resources and tools of the more than 600 major Federal Laboratories and Centers (e.g. DoD, DOE, NASA). Examples might include the use of federal facilities, or consultation with Government researchers. A host of technology partnering mechanisms exists to implement Government/Industry/University partnering relationships, including Cooperative Research And Development Agreements (CRADAs), Test Service Agreements, Space Act Agreements, Technology Investment Agreements and others.

5.6 Proposal Guidance and Content

5.6.1 Organization. Each team shall organize its proposal in response to this solicitation into the following seven sections. The content expected in each section is more fully described in the paragraphs below. Where the offeror's Statement of Objectives directly addresses information required in the proposal, the team may cross-reference their proposal section to the appropriate Statement of Objectives section.

1. Executive Summary

2. Technical Approach

3. Management Approach

4. Resources Required

5. Proposed Agreement w/ attachments

6. Certifications and Congressional Information

7. Statement of Objectives

5.6.2 Executive Summary. This document is meant to be an executive level description of key elements and unique features of each teams' proposed FCS Phase I program. The Executive Summary should at least address the offeror’s:

  1. Program Objectives and Approach
  2. Technical Approach
  3. Acquisition Approach, including schedule, technical performance risk areas, risk mitigation or reduction activities, and leveraging high quality cost share (i.e. labor, materials, overhead, G&A, Independent Research & Development (if any), etc.) or other Government research activities.

4) Top Level Program Schedule

5) Proposed Cost (Resources to achieve Statement of Objectives and teams' plans.)

5.6.3 Technical Approach. The offering team should address their overall technical approach. The offering team should provide significant details to address how they propose to accomplish the Design Concept Phase, being sure to discuss all aspects that appear in the related evaluation criteria in Section 6 of the solicitation. Further, the teams Technical section will separately address each of the following topics:

5.6.3.1 Concept Development Process. The offering team should describe the process it will use to develop the force and system concepts, with rationale, and associated information required for the final deliverables. The process should consider all tasks enumerated in Section 4 plus interrelationships necessary to guarantee a consistent set of results. The order of efforts to be undertaken and the extent to which iterative approaches will be used should be covered as well as the procedures used to maximize breadth of innovative input and to balance innovation against technical reality. The offering team should also describe how the collaborative Integrated Data Environment would be implemented. This description should include a development schedule and plan, the hardware and software that will be utilized, how the Government and the other team members will be interfacing with it and a general description of the functionality.

5.6.3.2 Initial Force and Vehicle System(s) Concept Description. The offering team should provide a top level description of their initial ideas for the force, necessary organizational structure and behavioral changes necessary to exploit/leverage the new technologies proposed as part of the force, identify

vehicle system(s) concepts, and the platform design issues that may emerge.

5.6.4 Management Approach. The offering team should address their overall management plan. The team should provide significant details to address all relevant evaluation criteria outlined in Section 6.

5.6.4.1 Team Structure. The offering team should define both the organizations and the individuals within those organizations that make up the team, including the expected duties, roles, responsibilities and commitments of the various members and the expected relationships among members. Teams may be Industry or Government led. The plan for coordinating with the Government, any proposed teaming changes. A description of the technical, administrative and business structure of the team, the internal communications plan, and the Government interface approach (including partnership with the User, technology developers, Modeling and Simulation agencies and manufacturers) should be included. The team leadership structure should be defined and resumes of key individuals included and skill sets required (minimums in required education and/or experience). The nature and extent of participation by Government Support Organizations (GSOs) and foreign firms (including how the integrity of classified data will be maintained) should also be described. The offering team should describe how the team would evolve from the Design Concept Phase through Production, if awarded.

5.6.4.2 Innovation. Because of the government’s intention to select the best combinations of technologies to produce the most effective combat force, each team should describe how they will enable recent technology development to enter their designs and teams before PDR/CDR. Additionally, describe how you will facilitate continuous inclusion of technological innovation throughout the life of the program. To that end, they should describe how they will facilitate re-teaming at each major part of the FCS life-cycle. Additionally, each offeror should describe other innovations in technology, design, and operational behavior design that their team will bring to the program. Finally, you should describe what innovative management practices will be in place to allow for a cost effective highly responsive and agile team.

5.6.4.3 Past Performance. The offering team should identify its recent, relevant past performance. This should include projects that were accomplished within the last three years. The team will provide the names, phone numbers and addresses of references for the identified projects.

5.6.4.4 Integrated Schedule. Included in this section are the specific detailed tasks the team will complete and the time frame allotted to each task to achieve the program’s technical and payable milestones and deliverables. All milestones must have associated accomplishment criteria. The schedule should illustrate the team’s ability to complete the program and deliver a product within the scheduled timeframe.

5.6.4.5 Intellectual Property. The offering team should describe its proposed approach to intellectual property rights, together with the supporting rationale of why this approach offers the best value to the Government.

5.6.5 Resources Required. The offering team should provide sufficient cost information and supporting documentation to support the dollars proposed. The cost proposal should be segmented and presented so as to support the payable milestones. The cost response should be in the offeror's format. Certified cost or pricing data is not required. The cost proposal will contain a brief cost summary (no more than two pages) at the beginning of the section. This narrative will include pertinent remarks concerning the proposed indirect rates, the traceability of costs to the offerors Statement of Objectives, a discussion showing that the Government is receiving adequate value, etc. In order for the Government to determine the reasonableness, realism and completeness of your cost proposal, the following data must be provided for each team member and in a cumulative summary:

5.6.5.1 Labor. Total labor includes direct labor and all indirect expenses associated with labor, to be used in the FCS Phase I period of performance. Provide a breakdown of labor and rates for each category of personnel to be used on this project.

5.6.5.2 Direct Materials. Total direct material that will be acquired and/or consumed in the FCS Phase I period of performance. Limit this information to only major items of material and how the estimated expense was derived.

5.6.5.3 Subcontracts. Describe major efforts to be subcontracted, the source, estimated cost and the basis for this estimate.

5.6.5.4 Travel. Total proposed travel expenditures relating to the FCS Phase I period of performance. Limit this information to the number of trips, and purpose of each trip.

5.6.5.5 Other Costs. Any direct costs not included above. List the item, the estimated cost, and basis for the estimate.

5.6.5.6 Remember the cost proposal should tell the story of how and why the offerors are planning to complete their proposed Statement of Objectives. Activities such as demonstrations required to reduce the various technical risks should be identified in the Statement of Objectives and reflected in the cost proposal. The offeror should provide a total estimated price for the major IR&D activities associated with the program (if any).

5.6.5.7 Cost Share. Teams proposing cost share should identify the amount, timing, source of cash and provide the supporting rationale for cost share. The teams should also provide evidence of commitment if cost share is proposed.

5.6.6 Proposed Agreement w/ attachments. Teams are required to submit a signed agreement. To help prepare this, a Model Agreement is included as an attachment (Attachment 4). The sample agreement is meant to provide an idea of the terms and conditions of a typical agreement; it is not meant as a standard "one-size-fits-all" document. It is likely that other terms and conditions may be negotiated before award but a signed agreement is required to ensure the offering team has shaped the terms and conditions into a final form. Teams can propose any changes, additions or deletions to the Model Agreement that should be considered during agreement negotiations. Fully explain the rationale for the changes made in an addendum to the Agreement. Rationale located in other areas of the solicitation response may be cross-referenced. It is the Government’s intent to begin negotiating the Design Concept Phase agreements as soon as proposals are received. The offering teams shall describe in their agreement changes addendum, any benefits incurred as a result of the use of the 845 authority in lieu of a procurement contract. Such benefits to be addressed include but are not limited to partnerships formed that would not have occurred under a traditional defense contract, agreements reached between the Consortium and DARPA that would not have been possible under a traditional defense contract, cost savings achieved through the use of an 845 agreement, and any other pertinent benefits achieved through the use of the Section 845 authority.

5.6.7 Certifications. Complete and return the certifications contained in Attachment 5.

5.6.8 Congressional Information. Prior to award of resultant agreements, congressional notification is required for all actions over $5 million dollars. To facilitate this process please provide the following information for each place of performance: team member name, business size, city, state, congressional district number, zip code, percentage of work being performed at this location and whether or not the work is being performed in a labor surplus area. Approved company press releases can also be submitted with appropriate spaces to be filled in at a later date. This information is requested at proposal submission to provide for timely notification and publication from any resultant award.

5.6.9 Statement of Objectives. Offering teams' Statement of Objectives will be inserted into any resultant agreement. It is anticipated that these documents will be modified as the FCS program matures through the program phases. Section 4 is not intended to be all inclusive; represented are taskings which should be included, as a minimum, as each team develops their proposed agreement. The offering teams will prepare a Statement of Objectives that reflects the overall intent of their program and how they intend to meet the overall program objectives.

5.6.10 Administrative Instructions

5.6.10.1 Organization. Offerors will submit one original and 10 copies of their proposal in standard three-ring, loose-leaf binders with individual pages unbound and single sided printing to facilitate page changes. The original proposal must be signed by authorized representatives of the team. The sections entitled; Resources Required, Proposed Agreement ,Certifications and Statement of Objectives have no page limitations. A proposal may be considered unacceptable if the offeror submits pages in excess of the limitations set forth below. The page limitations for each section are as follows:

SECTIONDESCRIPTION

PAGE LIMIT

1

Executive Summary

5

2

Technical Approach

75

3

Management Approach

25

4

Resources Required

None

5

Proposed Agreement

None

6

Certifications

None

7

Statement of Objectives

None

The offering team is expected to validate the proposal for 90 days from the date specified for receipt of proposals.

5.6.10.2 Page and Print Information. Each page should be printed on 8-1/2" x 11" paper in at least 10-point font. Any graphics will not be smaller than 8-point. Fold out pages will be counted as multiple pages. All pages should be marked SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE.

5.6.10.3 Electronic Information. Teams are required to submit their proposal in Microsoft Office 97 compatible electronic format. Documents containing imported graphics (drawings, charts, photos, etc.) should be accompanied by the originally imported graphics files. Acceptable media includes 3.5" diskettes, 100MB ZIP cartridges or CD-ROM.

5.6.10.4 Proposal Delivery Information. An authorized representative of the company must sign the original proposal sections. The deadline for receipt of proposals is March 17, 2000 at 3 PM. Late responses will not be accepted. Mail or hand carry proposals to:

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Contracts Management Directorate

Attn: Robin M. Swatloski

3701 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203-1714

Solicitation No.: RA00-10

Responses and response modifications (which will only be accepted prior to the

deadline for receipt of response) shall be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages to the address shown above and marked with the following information on the outer wrapping:

Offeror's name and return address

The response receipt address above

Solicitation Number: RA00-10

5.6.10.5 Submission of Classified Information. Responses to this program solicitation should be unclassified. However, an offeror submitting classified information should contact Mr. Rick Hohman, DARPA Security and Intelligence Directorate, at (703) 696-2385 for appropriate instructions.

5.6.10.6 Solicitation Questions and Answers. Offering teams may submit questions on the Future Combat Systems solicitation via e-mail, by fax. Send electronically submitted questions to the Agreements Officer, Robin Swatloski via email at [email protected] or fax (703) 696-2208. The mailing address is:

DARPA

Contracts Management Directorate/R. Swatloski

3701 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203-1714

Solicitation questions and answers considered appropriate for distribution to all interested parties will be posted on the FCS Program website. Questions will be treated as business sensitive and will not be accessible through the website until screened by the Program Office for publication.

Offerors must indicate if they want a hard-copy answer to their questions.

Include the following information in all solicitation questions:

5.6.10.7 Regulations Governing Objections to Solicitation and Award. Any objections to the terms of this solicitation or to the conduct of receipt, evaluation or award of agreements must be presented in writing within ten calendar days of (1) the release of this solicitation, or (2) the date the objector knows or should have known the basis for its objection. Objections should be provided in letter format, clearly stating that it is an objection to this solicitation or to the conduct of evaluation or award of an agreement, and providing a clearly detailed factual statement of the basis for objection. Failure to comply with these directions is a basis for summary dismissal of the objection. Mail objections to the address listed in the proposal delivery information.

5.6.10.8 Rules of Engagement (Communication between Industry and Government). The purpose of the rules of engagement is to provide guidance on oral and written communications between the FCS Project Office personnel, the potential military users, other Government personnel, and Industry teams. The underlying policy being established is two-fold: (a) to ensure persons participating in the FCS Phase I process understand their responsibilities and obligations and (b) to engender confidence in the fairness of the source selection process.

5.6.10.8.1 General Principles. The Government and each participating team have a joint interest in achieving success in this program. In the early phases of this program each team has the desire to be the selected vendor going into this phase or subsequent phases. The Government’s interest is to provide a significant new capability to the early entry force and help each team achieve its ideas and be successful.

5.6.10.8.2 Detailed Principles.

Pre Phase 1 solicitation release.

All actions by the DARPA/Army FCS program management team and other Government or Industry teams' employees involved in the Phase I, source selection process. No person's actions should provide an unfair competitive advantage either actual or reasonably perceived by any other party or parties.

Contact between the DARPA/ ARMY FCS program management team and Industry will be conducted with candor. Discussions with the DARPA/ ARMY FCS program management team and source selection personnel can only be in the form of solicitation questions through the web-site.

Non-Government Experts. Industry teams are advised that employees of support contractors may be called upon as technical advisors in the source selection process. These individuals will be required to sign non-disclosure statements and will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition and from proposal scoring, ranking or recommending the selection of a source. By submission of a proposal, the team agrees that proposal information may be disclosed to those selected individuals for the limited purpose stated above. Any information not intended for limited release to these individuals must be clearly marked and submitted segregated from other proposal material.

Post-Phase 1 Solicitation Prior to Award of Agreements

Oral Presentations. During the evaluation process, offering teams will be asked to provide oral presentations in response to clarification and/ or weaknesses in their proposals. This presentation will give the Program Manager the opportunity to ask any additional questions necessary to understand the proposal. Offering teams may be allowed to submit change pages to their proposal that result from the list of clarifications and weaknesses. The written submission takes precedence over the oral presentations.

Post-Award of Phase I Agreements

The government desires to be an active member of the industry teams selected as a result of this solicitation. That participation will include offering of suggestions, advice and non-mandatory guidance. The insight is important to ensure focus of customer needs and understanding of the various individuals approaches. During this interaction, the government will protect all data shared with it.

The source selection team for Phase II will separate itself during Phase I from this active participation. When this takes place it will be subject to discussion and additional guidance.

5.6.10.9 Destruction of Unsuccessful Proposals. All unsuccessful proposals will be destroyed three (3) months after award. No destruction certification will be furnished.

5.7 Funding Structure. Approximately 39 % of the program funding will be distributed to each team in fiscal year 2000 and 46% in fiscal year 2001 and 15% in fiscal year 2002, subject to the availability of funds. These amounts fund the efforts necessary to execute the program as described in this solicitation and are only for expenditure under the agreements to be awarded. Offering teams should propose a payable event schedule for disbursement of these funds based on their integrated set of milestones, accomplishment criteria and deliverables. Cost sharing or other team contributions may be proposed and will be considered in making selections.

6. EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.1 The general objective of the evaluation is to assess the probability that the proposed work will develop force and system(s) concepts and identify supporting technologies capable of maximizing the US Army’s effectiveness in the 2012 and beyond timeframe. The areas listed below are in descending order of importance with the technical and management areas considerably more important than the other areas. The specific evaluation criteria for this effort are:

6.2. Technical

6.2.1 The extent to which the offering team’s demonstrates its understanding of the problem as defined in the Mission Need Statement and this solicitation.

6.2.2 The extent to which the offering team show its soundness of approach in addressing the problem.

6.2.3 The innovation of the offering team's approach as demonstrated through a combination of team structure, technologies proposed or other innovation processes.

6.2.4 The ability of the offering team to address how it will manage performance, schedule, and cost risk.

6.2.5 How well the Integrated Schedule depicts a realistic, time-phased plan to achieve the Phase I efforts detailed in the Statement of Objectives which support meeting the objectives of the solicitation.

6.3 Management

6.3.1 The extent to which the offering team demonstrates its capability, experience and resources which will be required to perform the Design Concept Phase.

6.3.2 The innovation of the offering team's approach which leads to reductions in cost and schedule throughout the program as demonstrated through organization, management, business practices and working arrangements while maintaining high quality performance within proposed schedule and cost. Examples include but not limited to; innovative idea development techniques, intellectual property and financing, use of a compliant Integrated Data Environment, application of concurrent modeling and simulation techniques, teams cost sharing and use of Government Service Organizations.

 

6.4 Resources Required

6.4.1 How well the amount of effort proposed in the Statement of Objectives for Phase I correlates to the proposed costs for Phase I and provides adequate value to the government.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Preliminary Evaluation Considerations For The Force and System(s) Concepts Developed For The Demo Phase

2. Draft Mission Needs Statement for Future Combat Systems

3. Draft Future Combat Systems Terms of Reference

  1. Model Agreement
  2. Certifications

 

 

 

Attachment 1

Preliminary Evaluation Considerations For The Force and System(s) Concepts Developed For The Demo Phase

  1. Operational Effectiveness
  1. Deployability Exit Criteria (impact of weapon system(s) integrated into entire force). The exit criteria usually are concerned with strategic lift (air and sea)
  1. Command and Control
  1. Logistics (reduction)
  1. Transportability Exit Criteria (single weapon system). The exit criteria are viewed across the 4 modes of transportability (air, highway, sea, rail)
  1. Cost
  1. Performance Measures (vehicle level)