The Largest Security-Cleared Career Network for Defense and Intelligence Jobs - JOIN NOW


GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)

Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) Broad Agency Announcement

The Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate, Flight Vehicles Integration Branch (AFRL/MNAV), announced interest in December 2003 in receiving technical and cost proposals for the development and demonstration of a Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) under Broad Agency Announcement MNK-BAA-01-0001, Flight Vehicles Integration Research. The proposals will be accepted under the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) number MNK-BAA-04-0001; Armament Technology Research; topic entitled Flight Vehicles Integration Research.

This effort built on the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) Phase I program. The objective of this phase was to perform a risk reduction effort for a large penetrating munition and to conduct a study to assess the potential for integration in the B-2/B-52 aircraft. The large penetrating weapon is being designed for the defeat of a specialized set of hard and deeply buried targets.

The tasks of the first phase were to evaluate a case design, investigate explosive manufacturing concepts, refine and evaluate the control actuator system and define the guidance kit packaging. Trade studies were conducted on the aerodynamic configuration; fuze; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C); guidance kit packaging; accuracy; and flight demonstration options. Performance predictions against targets were analyzed and a carriage and release concept was developed.

The goal of the MOP program was to design and test a large penetrating munition, to demonstrate the weapon?s lethality against multi-story buildings with hardened bunkers and tunnel facilities and to reduce technology risk for future development. The MOP design will include the capability to defeat hard and deeply buried targets. It will be carried internally in a USAF B-2A/B-52 bomber and employed at high altitudes. The munition will attack targets at target altitudes of up to 10,000 ft. The munition will not exceed 30,000 lbs and will maximize explosive fill while maintaining structural integrity throughout the penetration event. The munition will be guided and have capability in GPS disrupted environments.

The program was structured as a concept refinement task order (TO) with additional task orders for each of the remaining tasks. It is envisioned that one contract will be awarded.

Under TO 1 - Concept Refinement, the contractor performed a cost / performance analysis (of proposed MOP designs -- including platform integration options), a penetrator optimization study, technology investment plan, and propose a Preliminary Design (PD). The contractor was expected, but not required, to leverage the concept definition work from the MOP Phase I program. The contractor shall develop a Draft Master Test Plan Outline (DMTPO), which included all ground and flight tests. The PD and DMTPO were presented at a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) prior to delivery to the Government for final approval.

Under TO 2 - Weapon Development and Preliminary Testing, the contractor was to develop a detailed hardware design. Simulation, aerostability analysis, component testing and other risk reduction activities were to be performed as required. Subscale models were to be fabricated and wind tunnel tested. The contractor was to perform and support the wind tunnel testing in accordance with the sponsor-approved Master Test Plan. The contractor was to conduct initial performance testing to include arena, blast lethality and penetration tests. The contractor shall conduct initial qualification tests and static tests. The Final Design including system specifications and Formal Master Test Plan was to be presented at a Critical Design Review (CDR).

Under TO 3 - Weapon Performance Demonstration, the contractor was to fabricate and integrate the unit to be flight-tested. It was expected that five drop tests would be conducted. The contractor was to perform and support the flight testing of the hardware in accordance with the sponsor-approved Master Test Plan. The contractor was to provide a final report.

The contractor was to be responsible for all test plans necessary for the maturation and demonstration of the hardware/software products to be tested. Contractor-generated test plans, as approved by the Government, would become contractual requirements. For tests being conducted at Government facilities, the contractor was to be responsible for providing technical support, analysis, data and test planning support to the identified responsible Government test organization. The contractor was to provide test support to include the following: support of test planning meetings; test setup and checkout; test article build up and transportation and checkout; installation of hardware; instrumentation package support; required documentation for testing; identification of risk and suggestions for improvements; record test setup; data collection for evaluation of results; post-test analysis and test result documentation.

It was expected that the following data submittals would be required. Study [DI-GDRQ-80567A, Subsystem Design Analysis Report (Study Report)], Status reports [DI-MGMT-80368/T, Status Report], cost/schedule management [DI-MGMT-81334/T, Contract Work Breakdown Structure (Cost/Schedule Breakdown Structure)]; [DI-FNCL-80912, Performance and Cost Report], program review info [DI-ADMN-81250A, Conference Minutes]; [DI-ADMN-81373/T], hardware design/drawings [DI-SESS-81002B, Developmental Design Drawings and Associated Lists], test plans [DI-NDTI-80566, Test Plan], test data [DI-NDTI-80809B, Test/Inspection Report], system specs [DI-IPSC-81432A, System/Subsystem Design Description], and final tech report [DI-MISC-80711A/T, Scientific and Technical Reports, Final Report].

The Government anticipated the following program meetings and reviews: Kickoff within four weeks of contract start date at offeror?s facilities; Technical Interchange Meetings at times coinciding with key program milestones or decision points that alternate between the offeror?s facilities and Eglin AFB; and a Final Program review at completion of the program at Eglin AFB, FL. The contractor may propose to conduct or participate in other meetings with subcontractors, Government agencies, or third parties, as deemed necessary.

The Government anticipated unlimited data rights to all data generated to include drawings and results. The Government highly recommended the proposed design include no parts, materials, or software that are proprietary. The offeror was responsible for explicitly identifying any proprietary materials, products, software, or processes to be used by the prime contractor or subcontractors in the performance of this program and to address acquisition of data rights or licenses, or expected recoupment of development costs for those proprietary items that will be integral to the hardware and software design and fabricated test items. Offerors were to apply the restrictive notice prescribed in the provision at FAR 52.215-1(e), Instructions To Offerors - Competitive Acquisition, to trade secrets, or privileged commercial and financial information contained in their proposals.

TO 1 was expected to last 6 months with results deliverable in the middle of month 6. TO 2 was expected to last 10 months and TO 3 is expected to last 15 months. Total Period of Performance for the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract was not to exceed 5 years. The Government anticipated awarding one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract to the offeror who the Air Force believed has submitted the most advantageous proposal, based upon evaluation using the Evaluation Criteria found within this document.

The Government anticipated receiving approximately $11.5M of FY04-07 funds for this program. The Government expected TO 1 costs would not exceed $500K, TO 2 costs would not exceed $3M, and TO 3 would not exceed $8M. It was anticipated that an IDIQ contract would be awarded with a maximum ceiling of $20M since it was impossible to accurately estimate all requirements during the five year period of performance. This funding profile was an estimate only and is not a promise of funding, as all funding is subject to changes/availability and Government discretion. It was desired that contract expenditures be managed and billed so as to maximize FY05 expenditure of FY04 and FY05 funding.

Join the mailing list

One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger - by Matthew Yglesias

Page last modified: 15-11-2011 17:43:52 ZULU