Army OSBP Mentor‑Protégé White Paper Compliance & Gap Review

Eight-section structure

White Paper shall be structured in eight sections (A–H) as provided in the template; deviations may be rejected as non-responsive

Sections A–H are present and labeled; includes Restrictive Markings and Compliance Statement

Covered

Ensure final file contains ONLY the White Paper sections A–H (plus allowed statements) and not extra pages/appendices beyond allowed attachments.

Page limit

Not to exceed 15 pages (affirmation memo + DCMA/DCAA letters not counted)

States intent to comply with 15-page limit; actual page count not evidenced in text extract

Partial

Risk of administrative rejection if final formatting exceeds 15 pages; must validate in the final DOCX export.

Fonts/margins/format

8.5x11, single sided, 1-inch margins, no font smaller than 12pt (except diagrams)

Not specified; implies alignment with template requirements

Gap

Administrative non-compliance risk if formatting not verified; add a one-line compliance statement or ensure template adherence.

Submission method & recipients

Email to contracting officer + program manager + Move America; subject line specified

Not included in White Paper content (often handled in transmittal email)

N/A

Not required inside the White Paper, but ensure transmittal email matches requirement (subject line and all recipients).

No URL links / no extra files

Movie/sound, URL links, or other additional files will not be accepted; only permitted attachments (Affirmation Memo; DCMA/DCAA letters; >$600k justification if applicable)

States compliance with no URLs/attachments beyond permitted; mentions affirmation memo and DCMA/DCAA docs as separate attachments

Covered

Confirm final document contains no live hyperlinks (even in emails/footers) and no embedded web references.

Proper markings

Restrictive markings per FAR 52.215-1(e)(1)-(2)

Explicitly states proprietary marking will follow FAR 52.215-1(e)(1)-(2)

Partial

Statement is present but actual legends/markings on each page/section not shown; ensure final document is correctly marked throughout.

Section A – Introduction

Contact info; mentor profile; volume of DoD/Army contracts; accomplishments under small business programs; indicate active subcontracting plan; mentor qualifications/capabilities; experience assisting small businesses; technical expertise; capacity; past performance in DoD/Army MPP; list all past/active MPAs & proposed agreements (agency); Nunn-Perry awards/significant mentoring

Provides mentor/protégé contacts; mentor profile and capabilities; states has one or more DoD contracts with active small business subcontracting plans; describes supplier diversity/mentoring methods; states will complete DoD MPP mentor approval if not approved

Partial

Does NOT provide: (1) volume of DoD/Army contracts (e.g., # contracts, $ value, relevant vehicles), (2) explicit accomplishments/metrics under SB programs, (3) explicit DoD/Army MPP past performance (states executed mentoring activities but not MPAs), (4) list of all past/active MPAs and proposed agreements being considered (agency), (5) Nunn-Perry awards/significant mentoring accomplishments (explicitly state none if applicable).

Section B – Protégé description

Company profile; # employees; historical/recent activities; accomplishments; ability to participate without impairing operations (mgmt/revenue); current/previous participation in MPP if applicable

Provides profile, 28 employees, technical activities and early success; states stable revenue stream; dedicated MPP leads and protected capacity; states no prior DoD MPP participation

Covered

Consider adding concrete operational-resilience evidence (e.g., percent capacity allocated, governance cadence) and any relevant certifications/registrations (8(a) verified is present; CAGE/UEI TBD).

Section C – Relationship (current/past)

Mentor vision for protégé after program; benefits each achieves

Describes NDA, feasibility assessment, integration concept; clear vision (prime-ready/subcontract-ready); benefits to both

Covered

Add any existing contractual teaming (if any) and clarify whether any subcontracting has already occurred (pre-award only is stated).

Section D – Approach

Specific Army priority addressed; team; business and infrastructure assistance taskings with timeline; technology transfer taskings with timeline; engineering/technical ≥50%

Identifies Network Technologies and Contested Logistics; provides staffing roles and governance; includes 3-year base+options; gives year-by-year technical focus and business development items; states 65% technical

Partial

BAA expects clearer task-level timeline/deliverables (milestones by quarter or month) and clearer delineation of (a) engineering/technical vs (b) general business vs (c) infrastructure assistance; also specify agreement type (Reimbursable/Credit/Hybrid) or at least state intended type if known.

Section E – Authorized subcontractor effort

Name/POC; description of developmental assistance; identify percent participation; must be ≥5% of total contract value; clarify whether tasks are engineering/technical or business development

Names Alabama MEP with POC/address; defines scope (quality/process/CAPA/vendor mgmt); states ≥7% total value; scheduled mostly Years 1–2

Partial

Needs explicit classification of Alabama MEP tasks as (1) engineering/technical vs (2) general business development per BAA definitions; also provide year-by-year percent or hours/dollars to align with ROM spreadsheet.

Section F – Benefit to Army + Affirmation Memo

Explain how overall developmental assistance benefits Army priority area; include affirmation memo (1 page) with required elements

Strong benefit narrative tied to contested logistics/network resilience; describes planned affirmation memo content and rules

Partial

Must tie benefit more explicitly to a specific Program of Record/PEO/PM office (BAA emphasizes relevance to Army requirements). Affirmation memo is only promised, not attached/signed.

Section G – Anticipated mentor subcontracting

Mentor must clearly articulate roles and responsibilities the subcontractor will provide in this agreement

Describes subcontracting on-ramp for the protégé (SFT) with increasing workshare; defines types of packages and oversight

Partial

BAA Section G line refers to “subcontractor” roles/responsibilities—ambiguous whether it means the protégé as subcontractor to mentor, and/or the authorized subcontractor (Alabama MEP). Section G should explicitly state roles/responsibilities for BOTH: (1) SFT subcontract work packages and (2) Alabama MEP authorized-subcontractor deliverables and interfaces.

Section H – Pricing ROM

Use provided spreadsheet; do not change formulas; ROM valid 180 days; breakout by year and by assistance type and task performer; include mentor labor rolled-up no fee; travel/ODCs including workshop; authorized subcontractor totals; include DCAA rate approval + DCMA accounting system letter (not in page count); >$600k/yr requires extra justification

States ROM spreadsheet will be submitted; valid 180 days; mentions no formula changes; identifies required breakouts; mentions travel/ODCs and annual workshop; promises DCMA-approved accounting system verification and DCAA rate approval attachments; references DFARS Appendix I thresholds

Partial

No actual ROM numbers are provided in narrative; must ensure spreadsheet includes: (1) totals by year, (2) engineering/technical % by year and total, (3) Alabama MEP ≥5% (stated 7%) by year, (4) travel/ODCs explicit, (5) mentor labor no fee, (6) if any year exceeds $600k, add the required separate justification attachment.

R-III-A-01

Provide Mentor and Protégé contact information

Section A includes addresses, POCs, phone/email for both

Covered

CAGE/UEI are TBD; if available before submission, populate to reduce admin friction.

R-III-A-02

Indicate active small business subcontracting plan

Section A: states AIDSI performs under one or more DoD contracts with active small business subcontracting plans

Covered

Consider naming contract/vehicle at high level if permissible.

R-III-A-03

Include Mentor volume of DoD/Army contracts and accomplishments under SB programs

General statement of task orders and supplier diversity program; no quantified volume/metrics

Gap

Add quantitative evidence (e.g., average annual DoD revenue band, # Army/DoD prime contracts, subcontracting goal achievement %, SB spend %, awards).

R-III-A-04

Identify DoD/Army MPP past performance; list all MPAs (active/past) and proposed agreements; Nunn-Perry awards

Mentions “enterprise mentoring activities” but no MPAs listed; no Nunn-Perry statement

Gap

Explicitly state: (a) no prior MPAs (if true) or list them, (b) any proposed MPAs under consideration (agency), (c) Nunn-Perry awards (or state none).

R-III-D-01

Engineering/technical assistance ≥50% and percent identified

Section D: ≥65% technical assistance across three years

Covered

Ensure ROM spreadsheet supports 65% and labels what counts as engineering/technical per BAA definitions.

R-III-E-01

Authorized subcontractor ≥5% of total proposed value; identify percent

Section E: Alabama MEP, ≥7% total value

Covered

Ensure ROM spreadsheet and year-by-year breakout reflect ≥7% and that MEP is an allowed category.

R-III-F-01

Affirmation memo required with letterhead, contact info, gap/interest statement, benefit statement, GS-15/COL signature

Section F: commitment to include as attachment; describes content

Gap

Obtain signed memo before submission; ensure memo explicitly states the specific gap/interest and avoids promotional content.

R-III-H-01

ROM pricing valid 180 days

Section H: explicitly states ROM valid 180 days

Covered

Align dates (submission date + 180 days) in ROM sheet and/or cover note.

R-III-H-02

Provide DCAA rate approval + DCMA approved accounting system proof (attachments)

Section H: states will include both as attachments

Partial

High risk if missing at submission; ensure the actual letters are included and current.

R-III-ADM-01

No URL links or additional files (beyond permitted)

Compliance statement includes prohibition on URL links; only permitted attachments referenced

Covered

Scan final document for embedded hyperlinks and remove/convert to plain text if needed.

Authorized subcontractor participation

Must identify participation by authorized subcontractor (HBCU/MSI/APEX/SBDC/WBC/MII/MEP) AND provide ≥5% of total proposed contract value; failure results in disqualification

Section E names Alabama Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) with POC and scope; states planned at minimum of 7% total value

Pass (Stated)

Must ensure ROM spreadsheet (Section H attachment) also reflects ≥7% and ties to year-by-year breakout.

Engineering & Technical assistance percentage

Percent of engineering and technical assistance from Mentor + authorized subcontractor(s) must be identified and ≥50% of total proposed effort (pass/fail)

Section D states engineering/technical assistance will be no less than 65% of total effort across 3 years

Pass (Stated)

BAA requires the percent be identified; narrative states 65%, but ROM spreadsheet must corroborate by dollars/effort and by year.

Affirmation Memorandum (required attachment)

Memo on Agency letterhead from Army Program Office or qualified Technical Advisor; includes contact info; states gap/interest and benefit; signed GS-15/COL level; not used to market capabilities

Section F states AIDSI will include a one-page affirmation memo as separate attachment; describes intended contents

Gap (Not Provided)

Pass/fail risk until an actual signed memo is obtained; must explicitly state the specific gap/interest in the memo and include signer title/grade.

Disqualification due to missing/invalid Affirmation Memo

Memo not attached; not on letterhead; missing gap/interest statement; wrong signer level

Medium

Very High

Critical

Secure memo early; use a checklist matching solicitation_text.docx; verify signer grade/title; keep to 1 page; include contact info and explicit gap.

Pass/fail inconsistency between narrative and ROM spreadsheet

Narrative states 65% E/T and 7% MEP but spreadsheet totals differ by year

Medium

High

High

Build spreadsheet first; then align narrative; include cross-foot checks; lock percentages by year and total.

Administrative rejection for formatting/page violations or embedded URLs

Final file exceeds 15 pages; small font; embedded hyperlinks

Low-Medium

High

Medium-High

Run final compliance QA: page count, fonts, margins; remove hyperlinks; keep only permitted attachments.

Lower technical relevance score due to lack of specific Army program linkage

Benefit narrative not tied to a specific PEO/PM/Program of Record or named stakeholder needs

Medium

Medium

Medium

Align to an identified Army stakeholder (e.g., PEO C3T/PM) and cite concrete integration/transition touchpoints; reflect same in affirmation memo.

Lower capabilities/experience score due to unquantified mentor track record

Mentor experience described qualitatively without metrics or specific examples

Medium

Medium

Medium

Add concise quantitative proof points and brief case examples (SB development outcomes, compliance improvements, onboarding throughput).

Reimbursement allowability dispute later (Step 2)

Activities could be interpreted as normal subcontract deliverables vs developmental assistance

Low-Medium

Medium

Medium

Strengthen separability: explicitly mark which tasks are developmental, reusable, and not tied to a specific subcontract deliverable; map to DFARS Appendix I allowability categories.

Critical

Affirmation Memorandum not actually included (only described)

Pass/fail criterion; absence or missing required elements can disqualify

Obtain and attach 1-page memo on Army letterhead with contact info; explicit gap/interest; explicit benefit to Army/DoD; GS-15/COL signature; avoid promotional content

Mentor (AIDSI) with Army PO/TA

High

Mentor DoD/Army contract volume and SB accomplishments not quantified

Section A instruction; affects evaluation factors (Capabilities/Experience; Past Performance)

Add a concise metrics block: DoD/Army contract count/vehicles, approximate annual DoD obligations band, subcontracting goal achievement, SB spend %, notable SB mentoring outcomes

Mentor (AIDSI)

High

DoD/Army MPP past performance / list of MPAs and proposed agreements missing

Explicit Section A requirement; omission is a clear compliance gap

Add a subsection: “DoD/Army MPP History” listing all active/past MPAs (agency, dates, protégé) or “None”; list any proposed MPAs under consideration; Nunn-Perry awards or “None”

Mentor (AIDSI)

High

Engineering/technical vs business development vs infrastructure assistance not cleanly delineated at task level

Section D asks for taskings with timeline; evaluation emphasizes approach/timeline for tech transfer

Convert Year 1–3 narrative into a task table by quarter with deliverables, objective evidence, and classification (E/T vs GBD vs Infrastructure)

Mentor + Protégé

High

Section E does not label Alabama MEP tasks as E/T vs GBD; no year-by-year percent

Evaluation factor requires clear identification and percent participation; pass/fail tied to ≥5%

Add explicit labeling per BAA definitions (e.g., QA/process may map to engineering/technical if tied to test/QA; some items may be GBD). Provide year-by-year % allocation (Y1, Y2, Y3)

Mentor + Authorized Subcontractor

Medium

Section G ambiguity: roles/responsibilities for “subcontractor” not explicit for both SFT and Alabama MEP

Section G instruction explicitly requests roles/responsibilities; ambiguity can reduce score

Add bullets separating: (1) SFT as protégé subcontractor work packages (interfaces, acceptance), (2) Alabama MEP deliverables, reporting, artifacts, integration with MSR

Mentor

Medium

ROM content is described but not evidenced with numbers in narrative

Evaluation factor includes reasonableness of ROM; also cross-checks pass/fail percentages

In White Paper, add a brief top-line ROM summary table (optional) that mirrors the spreadsheet totals (by year; E/T vs GBD; performer split) while keeping the spreadsheet as the authoritative artifact

Mentor

Medium

CAGE/UEI marked TBD for both firms

Not explicitly required for Step 1 content, but may create admin follow-ups and reduce confidence

Populate CAGE/UEI if available before submission; if not, state “Applied/Expected by [date]”

Mentor + Protégé

Low

Formatting compliance not explicitly stated (margins/font); page-count not verifiable from text

Administrative review may reject non-compliant formatting

Add a one-sentence statement: “Conforms to 15-page limit, 12-pt font, 1-inch margins” and validate final DOCX/PDF output

Mentor