Request For White Papers:

Joint Services Additive Manufacturing

CAUTION NOTICE: ..................................................................................................................................2

BACKGROUND:........................................................................................................................................3

PROBLEM STATEMENTS:....................................................................................................................... 3

A. Problem Statement: NextGen 3D Scanners...................................................................................... 3

B. Problem Statement: Geometric Search............................................................................................. 4

C. Problem Statement: Printer Management and Security..................................................................... 4

SUBMISSION CRITERIA & EVALUATION PROCESS........................................................................... 5

PROJECT DURATION, ESTIMATED FUNDING & AWARD DATE: ..................................................... 6
Project DLA-OTA-000-0001: Joint Service Additive Manufacturing

2 of 6

CAUTION NOTICE: 

1. Solicitation for white papers, solution briefs or proposals does not guarantee that the 

government will make an award;

2. Offerors bear all costs to prepare and submit responses to this solicitation; 

3. By submitting a response, offerors agree that the government:

a. Shall reproduce the response, or any portions thereof, to the extent necessary to 

evaluate the offer;

b. Shall use information contained in the brief only for evaluation purposes. DoD shall 

not disclose, directly or indirectly, such information to any person including potential 

evaluators, unless that person has been authorized to receive such information.

4. For traditional defense contractors only: statute requires1 a cost sharing arrangement of at 

least one-third if a non-traditional defense contractor does not participate to a significant 

extent in this prototype project. A cost sharing arrangement is not a consideration for 

award; therefore, the government will give no evaluation preference to offerors that 

propose a cost sharing arrangement;

5. Any Prototype Other Transaction Agreement (“OTA”) awarded in response to this 

solicitation may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction 

without the use of further competitive procedures. The follow-on production contract or 

transaction will be available for use by one or more organizations in the Department of 

Defense and, as a result, the magnitude of the follow-on production contract or agreement 

could be significantly larger than that of the Prototype OTA. As such, any Prototype 

Other Transaction Agreement will include the following statement relative to the potential 

for follow-on production: 

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2371b(f), and upon a determination that the prototype 

project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded 

prototype OTA may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or 

transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

 1 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(d)(1)(c)
Project DLA-OTA-000-0001: Joint Service Additive Manufacturing

3 of 6

BACKGROUND:

In November 2018, the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) and multiple military services designed and 

built a new additive manufacturing (“AM”) capability. This capability is the Joint Additive 

Manufacturing Model Exchange (“JAMMEX”), a portal that DLA hosts, where disparate military AM 

communities can share project design files and associated data. The Army’s RAPTOR program, the 

United States Marine Corps’ Advanced Manufacturing Operations Cell and DLA are the first users of 

this exchange. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (“OSD”) and the manufacturing institute 

America Makes are actively developing the scaled version for wider DoD use, with the first major 

release in August 2019.

This OTA effort is a secondary outcome of the exchange effort. How might DoD stakeholders 

tackle related problems as additive manufacturing efforts increase? This effort—driven by extensive 

interviews across DoD and industry—yielded three high-value problem areas. The first two, scanning 

and searching, relate to how we create and find new 3D models. The third area, printer management, 

relates to how we emulate standardization (critical for safety) in an ever-changing environment of 

emerging technology.

While additive manufacturing efforts uncovered these opportunities, future applications extend to 

many more DoD use cases. 3D scanning and geometric search, for example, could advance capacity 

on DoD item cataloging, distribution and disposition, and other areas.

PROBLEM STATEMENTS:

A. Problem Statement: NextGen 3D Scanners

3D part designers (makers and engineers) currently develop new 3D designs, almost exclusively, in 

laboratory conditions because of the limitations of current scanning technology: significant noise that 

requires significant manual post processing. These 3D part designers need smaller, portable 

scanners—agnostic of underlying technology (laser, photometric, etc.)—in order to develop 3D 

designs in adverse, less predictable circumstances. Adverse circumstances include small spaces, limited 

or unavailable internet connection and unpredictable environmental conditions. 

Scaling Potential:

• Growing User Base. As JAMMEX Exchange grows, the DoD will develop more users to 

develop design files. Only a small percentage of these new users will have access to laboratory-based 

scanners, but many could possess handheld scanners.

• Rapidly create, test and analyze new part designs in theater. As additive manufacturing 

matures, DoD will exponentially expand its need to design and print parts (especially break-fix, short 

lifecycle parts) in adverse conditions with a quick turnaround.
Project DLA-OTA-000-0001: Joint Service Additive Manufacturing

4 of 6

B. Problem Statement: Geometric Search

3D part designers (makers and engineers) do not have an easy way to see whether another designer has 

already made their part. DLA, for context, manages 5.1 million national stock numbers (NSNs)—

roughly equivalent to the possible universe of DoD-centric 3D printed items. Moreover, 3D part 

designers usually do not have the skillset to tag their items via established cataloging standards. Thus, 

these designers need a way to search for parts that does not depend on established nomenclature. 

Scaling Potential:

• Intellectual Property. DoD stakeholders could use geometric shape search to locate 3D models 

that resemble restricted parts, protecting the government from liability. This search could serve as the 

backbone of a takedown feature to ensure DoD part repositories only contain approved models. 

• Identify and match unknown components. The nexus of geometric search and 3D scanning 

has a variety of related uses, tangential to additive manufacturing. In warehouse environments, for 

example, DoD stakeholder could use these scanners to identify untagged assets. While it would not be 

cost-effective to put every untagged asset into a laboratory-sized coordinate measuring machine, it 

would be cost effective to use a fleet of low-cost handheld scanners. DoD stakeholders can use 

technologies like geometric search to match a handheld scan to an existing 3D model.

• Safe Disposal. Similar to the warehouse use case, the nexus of geometric search and 3D 

scanning would enable the DoD to safely dispose of unknown parts. Often, the underlying part 

materials can contain or create hazards. DLA Disposition Services and similarly situated organizations 

have standards with known quantities. This technology would enable DoD to quickly identify 

hazardous parts even in situations where we do not immediately have identifying material. 

C. Problem Statement: Printer Management and Security

Inside the military services, the program mangers responsible for additive manufacturing repositories 

do not have visibility on what happens with the parts they host. These program managers do not 

know how many parts that makers print, the quality of those prints, environmental conditions, printer 

settings and other critical post-production data. Often, they attempt to capture this data with surveys 

or other non-systematic data-gathering methods. These program managers need an automated system 

that tracks the full lifecycle of a printed part: from design to print to quality assessment. In sum, 

current systems are uni-directional from repository to maker. Future systems need to capture maker 

data (bi-directional) and feed it back into the home repository.

Scaling Potential:

• Drive Security. U.S. adversaries are aware of DoD interest in additive manufacturing and will 

attack vulnerabilities. Printer management software would allow DoD to see what is happening on a 

printer level and ensure the integrity of files from repository to printer and back. 

• Drive Standardization. Printer management software will serve as a bridge to existing systems 

that are not immediately replaceable. Ideally, in the long term, DoD will have a standardized set of 
Project DLA-OTA-000-0001: Joint Service Additive Manufacturing

5 of 6

printers with common settings. In the short and medium terms, makers print on more than a hundred 

different models with disparate settings. This effort should ensure interoperability so that many 

printers can yield the same quality for the same part.

SUBMISSION CRITERIA & EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government shall evaluate each offeror submission on the following three technical criteria2, all of 

equal importance. The government shall also consider price. The technical criteria, popularized by 

IDEO3, is a common method to drive enterprise innovation and build successful prototypes. These 

criteria help prevent common dead ends and drive prototypes that are actionable, which the 

government is likely to adopt and scale.

1. Feasibility – solution to problem statement is technically possible. This criterion measures 

whether the technology exists or is likely to be developed in the scope of this prototype effort. 

An example of something that is not feasible is a “Star Trek” transporter;

2. Viability – solution to problem statement is compatible with DoD constraints, technical 

environments and other organizational requirements. This criterion measures whether DoD 

could easily adopt the prototype. An example of something which is not viable is a technology 

that has no chance of passing DoD cyber security requirements; and 

3. Desirability – solution is responsive to a problem statement. This criterion measures whether 

end users are likely to adopt the offeror’s prototype solution. An example of something which 

is not desirable is a piece of field equipment that is so uncomfortable to carry that end users 

refuse to bring it into the field. Another example of something which is not desirable is a 

feasible, viable technology that does not meet the problem that end users are trying to solve. 

The government does not anticipate that offerors will have a solution that combines all three problem 

areas. Offerors should focus their responses on the particular problem statement to which they have 

relevant technology. Should an offeror have technology that is relevant to more than one problem 

area, it may submit separate white papers. Offerors should only provide one paper per problem 

statement.

White papers shall conform to the following. Should offerors submit anything longer, the government 

will only evaluate the first five pages of a white paper.

• Four pages of technical discussion—explicitly addressing the target problem statement and 

how the proposed solution meets the three evaluation criteria

• A one page rough order of magnitude (“ROM”) price 

Within one month, the government shall respond to each white paper submission. At that time, the 

 2 https://medium.com/innovation-sweet-spot/desirability-feasibility-viability-the-sweet-spot-for-innovationd7946de2183c

3 IDEO is a prominent Silicon Valley-based design firm. See IDEO.org
Project DLA-OTA-000-0001: Joint Service Additive Manufacturing

6 of 6

government shall inform an offeror that: 

1.) the government has not selected to move forward with the submitted white paper; or 

2.) the government requests that the offeror participate in an in-person (or virtual) pitch.

The government shall use the same criteria to evaluate pitches as described for white papers.

After pitches, the government shall further down-select potential awardees and issue a request for 

prototype proposal (“RPP”) to the remaining candidate firm(s). The RPP will have specific guidelines. 

Chiefly, offerors must submit a statement of work and a detailed price breakdown as it relates to 

payment milestones. The government shall use the same criteria to evaluate prototype proposals as 

described for white papers and solution briefs.

PROJECT DURATION, ESTIMATED FUNDING & AWARD DATE:

Period of Performance: Successful offerors shall receive payment upon completion of the following 

project phases/payment milestones:

1 Collaborative Minimum Viable Product (“MVP”) Design

1 Evaluation, payment and go/no-go decision

2 Awardee delivers MVP to government 

2 Evaluation, payment and go/no-go decision; Scope prototype requirements

3 Awardee delivers prototype to government

3 Evaluation, payment and completion

For purposes of this project, the MVP is defined as the project blue print—the first step in the iterative 

process. After award, the successful offeror shall work with the government’s technical team to 

develop this detailed project plan for the eventual prototype. The government recognizes that, prior to 

award, offerors will have limited knowledge of the government’s relevant IT infrastructure and this 

collaborative phase allows the awardee to conduct relevant beneficiary discovery.

Minimum Funding: $600,000.

The Government reserves the right to award multiple prototypes. Depending on technical merit, the 

government may allocate this funding:

• across multiple awards to various companies on one problem statement;

• across multiple awards to various companies on multiple problem statements;

• on one award to a single company; or 

• any other configuration/allocation, including no award.

Please direct all questions and comments before the white paper submission deadline to 

accelerate@dla.mil

Electronic copies of white papers due: July 17, 2019 by 1:00 PM ET.