As Congress considers the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week, political enthusiasts can look forward to plenty of minor dramas playing out on the House floor and in Senate committee rooms.  Small businesses might be more excited about a provision of the NDAA that is unlikely to make the headlines: the prospect of a five-year extension of the popular Rapid Innovation Program.

The Rapid Innovation Program was created five years ago as “a collaborative vehicle for small businesses to provide the department with innovative technologies that can be rapidly inserted into acquisition programs that meet specific defense needs.”  Each year, Department of Defense agencies identify pressing operational requirements and publish them in a broad agency announcement.  Interested bidders offer white papers, which Department representatives evaluate on a “go” or “no-go” basis.  Offerors whose white papers receive a “go” rating are invited to submit full proposals for further evaluation and decision.  The program offers funding of up to $3 million over two years.  From FY2011 to FY2015, the GAO estimates that the government will have signed contracts for 435 projects, representing more than $1.3 billion. 

The Program was initially authorized for just five years, but the House Armed Services Committee included a five-year extension in the text of the NDAA it recently reported to the full House.  Success to the government is measured by the successful transition of technology developed in the Program to government acquisitions or to the commercial marketplace.  In the accompanying report, the Committee wrote: “In the past, the committee has expressed concern that the Department has not put sufficient emphasis on technology transition, but the renewed focus on warfighting experimentation to support transition and the effective use of the Rapid Innovation Program indicate that some progress may have been made.”  At the same time, the GAO issued a report noting that of the forty-four (44) completed projects started under the Program in 2011, about half had transitioned to an acquisition program, a military user, a prime contractor, or the commercial marketplace by 2014.  The GAO report concluded, however, that additional data should be collected to measure the success of the Program in helping industry use cutting-edge technology to meet some of the armed forces’ most urgent requirements.

This year’s broad agency announcement was posted to FedBizOpps.gov on April 15th.  Requirements range from the mundane (“Optimize sailor maintenance work time and efficiency, minimize administrative tasks, and improve sailor technical expertise”) to the macabre (“Digital Human Body Model for Injury Assessment in Kinetic Events … Incorporating a human body model into the blast models assessing vehicle performance [to] allow for definition of injury risks to both male and female occupants of various sizes”), offering opportunities for small businesses across a wide range of fields in the defense industry.

Small businesses should look closely at the list of requirements for potential work.  Based on the House version of the NDAA, they can also expect this fertile source of development funding to continue for at least five more years.

Tags: Defense, DoD, HASC, House Armed Services Committee, NDAA; National Defense Authorization Act, Rapid Innovation Program
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Susan B. Cassidy Susan B. Cassidy

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors…

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors on compliance with FAR and DFARS requirements, with a special expertise in supply chain and cybersecurity requirements. She has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information. Susan relies on her expertise and experience with the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to help her clients navigate the complex regulatory intersection of cybersecurity, national security, and government contracts. She is Chambers rated in both Government Contracts and Government Contracts Cybersecurity. In 2023, Chambers USA quoted sources stating that “Susan’s in-house experience coupled with her deep understanding of the regulatory requirements is the perfect balance to navigate legal and commercial matters.”

Her clients range from new entrants into the federal procurement market to well established defense contractors and she provides compliance advices across a broad spectrum of procurement issues. Susan consistently remains at the forefront of legislative and regulatory changes in the procurement area, and in 2018, the National Law Review selected her as a “Go-to Thought Leader” on the topic of Cybersecurity for Government Contractors.

In her work with global, national, and start-up contractors, Susan advises companies on all aspects of government supply chain issues including:

  • Government cybersecurity requirements, including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), DFARS 7012, and NIST SP 800-171 requirements,
  • Evolving sourcing issues such as Section 889, counterfeit part requirements, Section 5949 and limitations on sourcing from China
  • Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) regulations and product exclusions,
  • Controlled unclassified information (CUI) obligations, and
  • M&A government cybersecurity due diligence.

Susan has an active internal investigations practice that assists clients when allegations of non-compliance arise with procurement requirements, such as in the following areas:

  • Procurement fraud and FAR mandatory disclosure requirements,
  • Cyber incidents and data spills involving sensitive government information,
  • Allegations of violations of national security requirements, and
  • Compliance with MIL-SPEC requirements, the Qualified Products List, and other sourcing obligations.

In addition to her counseling and investigatory practice, Susan has considerable litigation experience and has represented clients in bid protests, prime-subcontractor disputes, Administrative Procedure Act cases, and product liability litigation before federal courts, state courts, and administrative agencies.

Susan is a former Public Contract Law Procurement Division Co-Chair, former Co-Chair and current Vice-Chair of the ABA PCL Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology Committee.

Prior to joining Covington, Susan served as in-house senior counsel at Northrop Grumman Corporation and Motorola Incorporated.

Read more about Susan B. CassidyEmail
Show more Show less