HR001122S0014-Amendment-01.pdf

HR001122S0014

Broad Agency Announcement

Oversight

DARPA Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

HR001122S0014

Amendment 01 11 February 2022

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the Proposal Due Date and Time as noted below and in PART I on page 5 and in PART IV on page 41. The amendment also revises the proposal submission language on page 43 as noted below.

PART I. Proposal Due Date and Time revised from April 9, 2022 to April 11, 2022.

PART IV. Proposal Due Date and Time revised from April 9, 2022 to April 11, 2022.

PART IV. Section IV.B.5.b sentence “When sending the classified portion via mail according to the instructions outlined in the “Security Information” section above, proposers should submit two (2) CD-ROMs containing the classified portion of the proposal as a single searchable Adobe PDF file.”

Updated to “When sending the classified portion via mail according to the instructions outlined in the “Security Information” section above, proposers should submit six (6) hard copies of the classified portion of their proposal and two (2) CD-ROMs containing the classified portion of the proposal as a single searchable Adobe PDF file.”

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background B. Program Overview C. Program Focus D. Excluded Technologies E. Program Plan and Risk Management F. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Proposals and Awards C. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices and Notifications B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

Funding Opportunity Title – Oversight Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001122S0014 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: 28 January 2022 o Questions Due Date: 07 February 2022 (11:59 PM Eastern Time) o Abstract Due Date and Time: 11 February 2022 Noon (12:00 PM Eastern Time) o Proposal Due Date and Time: 11 April 2022 Noon (12:00 PM Eastern Time) o BAA Closing Date: 28 October 2022 (11:59 PM Eastern Time)

Concise description of the funding opportunity – Oversight will provide constant custody at scale (1,000 targets) from space through management of available resources to support both peacetime and wartime monitoring of high value targets in contested environments, where the resources and targets are highly dynamic.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The total budget for Phase 1 is $21M, including the combination of the Phase 1 Base and the Phase 1 Option.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or Other

Transaction.

Agency contact o Point of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001122S0014@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001122S0014

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001122S0014@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

This BAA solicits innovative proposals for the DARPA TTO Oversight program in the area of software development for tracking terrestrial targets from space and at scale. DARPA anticipates that Oversight will be a two-phase program with options for both Phase 1 and Phase

2. This BAA covers the Phase 1 Base and the Phase 1 Option. A separate BAA that covers Phase 2 may be issued at a later date.

A. Program Background

The Department of Defense (DoD) relies on high-value asset early warning aircraft, such as the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), or forward deployed ships with the Aegis combat system to provide the detection and tracking necessary to guide forward tactical units to their targets on land, sea, or in the air. Our adversaries have made significant investments in long-range sensing capabilities as well as anti-air and anti-ship weapons, imposing costs and trade-offs such as increased stand-off distances for manned high-value assets operating in proximity to threat environments as a means of lowering risk postures. Maintaining a higher stand-off distance limits the utility of sensor systems, thus reducing their ability to support track custody. DARPA, the U.S. Space Force, and the Space Development Agency (SDA) are developing new satellite constellations to increase the tactical capabilities of U.S. space systems. However, additional investment is needed to effectively leverage these new satellite constellations for efficient track custody at scale.

Oversight will leverage a body of knowledge for efficient resource optimization and apply it to the tasking of large scale, distributed and federated space systems. Oversight will autonomously decompose a target list into tasks for each satellite such that constant custody at scale is maintained for 1,000 targets. Oversight will provide collaboration between satellite resources and ground-based resources for the distribution of tasking, re-tasking, synchronization, and fusion of target data within constellations. Algorithms will detect changing target behaviors and dynamically re-task appropriate sensors with each satellite node to maintain constant custody at scale. Oversight will further enable collaboration by sharing satellite state and target state knowledge between satellite resources and ground-based resources to increase efficiency. Within the context of this BAA, constant custody is considered knowledge of target error such that accuracy is obtained as necessary based on mission needs.

Oversight will leverage existing and/or state-of-the-art networks to connect constellations and ground resources. Oversight will minimize bandwidth needs by prioritizing and disseminating necessary data for synchronization and data fusion among other satellites. Latency and bandwidth limitations associated with a reliance on ground-based resources will be alleviated by processing data products for targets on orbit within the constellations. Latency and bandwidth limitations will be further alleviated through operator control at the constellation level rather than burdensome individual satellite control.

B. Program Overview

Oversight is a two-phase program that seeks software solutions to enable autonomous constant custody at scale (1,000 targets) from space through management of available hardware resources to support both peacetime and wartime monitoring of high value targets in contested environments, in which the resources and targets may be highly dynamic. Accordingly, proposals demonstrating innovation in resource management, task allocation, data management and dissemination are solicited. Proposed research should investigate approaches that revolutionize advances. Research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice is specifically excluded from this solicitation.

This BAA encompasses two independent tracks for Oversight Phase 1 (Phase 1 includes Phase 1 Base and Phase 1 Option):

Track A: Architecture and software development (includes a Phase 1 Option) Track B: Software exploration and maturation for resource management, task allocation, data management and dissemination (does not include a Phase 1 Option)

A future solicitation may be issued in a limited competition among Track A performers for Phase 2 (Phase 2 includes a Phase 2 Base and Phase 2 Option):

Phase 2 Base: Architecture and software maturation Phase 2 Option: Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) Demonstration

In order to focus the program on the development of solutions to the problem, DARPA will provide modeling and simulation (M&S) environment for performers to inject algorithms to test and provide proof of concept. The M&S will also act as an independent verification and validation (IV&V) environment for program deliverables. Necessary M&S interfaces for integration architecture and software solutions will be provided at the start of the program by the government.

C. Program Focus

Oversight will develop architecture and software to enable the constant custody of target lists to be executed at a large-scale using space assets. Current practices require human operators for exquisite satellite solutions. This arrangement does not scale well for the numbers of targets that Oversight is considering. Reliance on individual ground station operators significantly increases latency and minimizes tactical utility of satellite sensor data. Oversight will develop the automation and autonomy necessary to track targets with the operator overseeing many targets at an aggregate level. Oversight will enable operators to control space resources at the constellation level for constant custody applications at scale.

Oversight will develop software services with solutions that can be implemented on emerging space platforms, such as new Proliferated Low Earth Orbit (p-LEO) constellations.

Additionally, the use of existing legacy systems and commercial systems is within scope if the mission solutions dictate. Proposed solutions should indicate how Oversight services could be used with legacy systems to execute constant custody at scale successfully.

Oversight Track A performers should demonstrate Phase 1 performance objectives and trace their solution to Phase 2 performance objectives (Table 1).

Table 1: Performance Objectives Program Goal

Phase 1 Base and

Phase 1 Option

a. 100 stationary targets (target speed 0 mph)

b. Change entire target list and reacquire custody in 6 hours (approximately 4 orbits of a p-LEO constellation)

Phase 2 Base

a. 1,000 stationary targets

b. 100 targets with 25% stationary targets, 50% moving targets (target speed 1-

50 mph) and 25% stressing targets (target speed greater than 50 mph)

c. Target list modification for a. and b. of 100 targets and reacquire in 6 hours

(approximately 4 orbits of a p-LEO constellation)

Phase 2 Option

a. 1,000 targets with 10% stationary targets, 40% moving targets and 50% stressing targets

b. Target list modification of 100 targets and reacquire in 6 hours (approximately 4 orbits of a p-LEO constellation)

Targets will exclude hypersonic targets and will be regionally concentrated.

DARPA anticipates that the software services delivered on the Oversight program will be treated as Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCI) in Phase 2. While adherence to CSCI management is not part of Phase 1, proposers should indicate how their solution can conform to CSCI management principles and documentation if it is matured in Phase 2. More detailed information on CSCI can be found by searching for CSCI at this link:

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx.

D. Excluded Technologies

Specific technological areas that are considered out of scope with respect to this BAA are as follows:

Terrestrial software systems not intended for space deployment (e.g., air platforms, surface ships, ground sensors, etc.)

Payload software https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx

Operator modeling/cognition Hardware development (spacecraft, sensors, communications) The development of a new M&S environment is out of scope (performers existing M&S infrastructure may be used for trade space analysis, algorithm testing, and risk reduction activities)

E. Program Plan and Risk Management

The program consists of a multi-phase developmental cycle with each phase building upon the maturation of the previous phase. The final output of the Oversight program will be an LVC demonstration of the developed software services running on a subset of live satellites and augmented in simulation.

This BAA is soliciting proposals for Phase 1 (Phase 1 Base and Phase 1 Option). Phase 1 has two tracks. Offerors may propose to one or both tracks. Each Track will require a separate proposal.

Figure 1: Program Plan

Track A is the primary program track to design, develop, and demonstrate an integrated suite of Oversight software services, and to eventually demonstrate constant custody at scale from space. Track B will mature innovative software solutions relevant to the Oversight vision and provide risk reduction that may be incorporated into Phase 2.

Track A and Track B performers will be encouraged to closely collaborate during Phase 1 in order to assist Track A performers with the overall solution. Track B performers will also be expected to present technical status at quarterly Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) with all Track A performers.

Phase 1 Track A Description

Track A proposals shall consist of a 15-month Phase 1 Base period culminating in Spiral 1 Design Review that aligns with a Level 3 Architecture Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (Section IV.B.3 Figure 2) and a 3-month Phase 1 Option period culminating in a Delta-Spiral 1 Option Design Report.

Track A will develop architectures to enable constant custody at scale from space. Within the context of this BAA, architecture refers to designing and developing artifacts that drive the design and development of software services. While architecture views can be useful tools for conveying information, they are not considered the cornerstone of an architecture and are not required for this BAA. Track A must explore holistic software technology solutions relevant to the Oversight vision in resource management, task allocation, data management and dissemination. These include but are not limited to:

Applications and services that can make sensor tasking, data processing, and data dissemination decisions based on information about targets of interest, information about available platform sensing and processing capabilities, and priorities input by human operators.

Applications and services that maintain constellations’ ability to perform track custody;

for example, managing inter-satellite and ground-to-satellite networks, managing processing resources, managing asynchronous tasking requests, and communicating status as necessary to human operators.

Applications and services that facilitate the interface between technologies developed and physical hardware available within the constellations and/or on the ground.

Phase 1 proposals should assume a reference mission that includes approximately 1,000 total targets in a mixture of mobile, stationary, emitting, and non-emitting targets. Proposal reference missions can be unclassified or classified. Proposers must follow the classified proposal submission requirements contained in this BAA if classified information is included in their proposal. DARPA will provide a design reference mission to performers at Phase 1 award.

The reference mission will be used during Phase 1 so that performers can use it in trade space analysis, risk reduction activities, and basic M&S.

Throughout the Oversight program, Track A performers should expect to receive classified information from DARPA, execute specific analyses and trade studies at the classified level, and produce and disseminate classified results to DARPA. Unclassified development work is encouraged where feasible and allowable by the program Security Classification Guide.

During Phase 1, DARPA anticipates that performers should be able to work at the collateral Secret level at a minimum, and potentially up to the Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) level depending upon the classified capabilities and resources of Track A performers. During Phase 2, DARPA anticipates that performers will need to work at the TS/SCI/Special Access Program (SAP) level.

Track A proposers should clearly identify the spaces, information systems, and cleared personnel (including approximate level of effort) that will be available to support the Oversight program. If the acknowledgement of existing contracting relationships or information accesses is classified, proposers may submit classified addendums with this information in accordance with the classified proposal submission requirements contained in this BAA.

Track A performers will define architectures that support track custody with resource management, task allocation, data management and dissemination. For example, Track A performers will define functional capabilities; perform trade studies to assess the optimal locations of, and connections between, those capabilities; and identify capabilities that exist today versus capabilities that require new development. Track A performers will also produce a software architecture for Spiral 1.

Track A will develop the software based on the software architecture for Spiral 1.

Following a successful demonstration of performer algorithms, Spiral 1 will be implemented into the Government M&S environment, based on Government interfaces provided after award. The level of detail for Spiral 1 can be considered at the same detail as a system preliminary design review. It is not expected that full software quality code will have been developed. Full integration of services working together is also not necessary. Phase 1 services development should be sufficient to show they match the architecture and provide risk reduction and confidence going into Phase 2.

The Phase 1 Option will mature the systems design and provide a Delta-Spiral 1 option review to incorporate Government feedback from Phase 1 to improve their Spiral 1 applications and services.

Proposers should aggressively identify technical and programmatic risks and resource parallel risk reduction paths over the life of the program. The minimum anticipated meeting rhythm is outlined below and may include multiple meetings on the same day.

Monthly status teleconferences to provide insight into recent activities and near-term plans, briefing relevant technical development and program management topics.

Quarterly Program Reviews to convey technical progress and overall program performance (teleconference).

Throughout the design process, analysis of alternatives should be used to select configurations and architecture approaches. Software should be tested to verify design utility.

Designs and testing should accommodate suitable variability analysis in areas where no validated models exist.

Track A proposers are expected to demonstrate Phase 1 performance objectives and readiness to proceed into Phase 2 of the program via technology maturation and risk reduction activities. Track A proposers should also demonstrate the ability to integrate technology solutions into the Government M&S environment. The Track A deliverable table below outlines the minimum set of program deliverables.

Table 2: Track A Deliverables Deliverable Due date Description

Kick-off meeting presentation

1 Month after award (MAA)

Presentation that summarizes the Phase 1 plan, highlighting changes made since proposal submission and detailing the first three months of Phase 1.

Operation Security Plan (OPSEC) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Mitigation Plan

1 MAA and for any change in security posture

Plans used to identify and monitor security activities during the performance of a contract. Both plans are intended to be a living document that will require periodic updates throughout the life of the contract.

Technical Interchange Meeting report (TIM)

Quarterly Report or annotated briefing that summarizes findings and recommendations from Track B TIM.

Risk Reduction Plan (RRP) Initial at kick-off, then updated quarterly

Document that defines the software maturation. Must include current risk assessment and progress against risk waterfalls.

Trade study reports 2 weeks after completion of trade study

Report or annotated briefing that describes the trades conducted, indicating impact and traceability to respective performance objectives or derived metrics from the Software Requirements Review (SRR).

Risk reduction activity report

2 weeks after completion of risk reduction activity

Report or annotated briefing that describes the major risk reduction activity, outcomes, and consequences to design and development.

Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS)

Initial at kick-off, then updated quarterly

Program schedule, incorporating detailed plans.

Technical Status Teleconference

Monthly Teleconference to discuss progress over the previous month and plans for the upcoming month.

Quarterly Program Review

(QPR)

Quarterly Presentation outlining technical progress, planned future activities, and program management updates (to include cost, schedule, and personnel). May coincide with Monthly Technical Status Teleconference.

Technical and Financial Status Report

Monthly Report that provides technical, financial, and schedule updates.

Software Requirements Review (SRR) Documentation

4 MAA Documentation detailing system requirements specification (functional and performance), requirements traceability matrix, and decomposition for verification and validation roadmap.

Spiral 1 Design Review 14 MAA;

Spiral 1 data items delivered 2 weeks prior to review

Documentation that details the architecture, and software applications and services design. Critical system documentation should be summarized and available at the review. This should also include incorporation into the Government M&S environment.

Delta Spiral 1 Report (Option)

18 MAA Documentation that incorporates Government provided feedback, following the Spiral 1, into the design(s).

Phase 1 Final Report 15 MAA or 18 MAA If Phase 1 Option Exercised

Report that details all Phase 1 activities, capturing top-level results of all trade studies, design performance analyses, and demonstration design.

Phase 1 Track B Description

Track B performers are expected to think outside of the box and to concentrate on a smaller subset of the overall solution. Concentration in specific areas of expertise in resource management, task allocation, data management and dissemination, to help provide enhanced performance options to the overall program objective. Track B proposals should consist of a single-phase effort aligned to a Level 3 Software WBS (Section IV.B.3 Figure 2) with a period of performance not to exceed 15 months to enable potential integration of Track B solutions into Track A designs for Phase 2. Track B proposers are expected to propose a research effort sufficient to develop and demonstrate their technical solution within the 15-month period of performance. Track B proposals are encouraged to explore technologies including but not limited to:

Applications and services that can make sensor tasking, data processing, or data dissemination decisions based on information about targets of interest, information about available sensing and processing capabilities, and priorities input by human operators.

Applications and services that maintain constellations’ ability to manage inter-satellite and ground-to-satellite networks, manage processing resources, manage asynchronous tasking requests, or communicate health and status to ground station operators interacting at the constellation level.

DARPA anticipates that the content and output of these efforts may vary significantly, depending on focus area, but may include algorithms and software, models, and/or test data.

DARPA strongly encourages the Track B proposers to aim to demonstrate the highest level of technical maturity possible within the period of performance. Track B performers will be required to communicate progress and results to Track A performers on a quarterly basis.

The Track B deliverable table below outlines the minimum set of program deliverables.

Track B proposers are welcome to propose alternative periods of performance shorter than the 15 months specified, if appropriate for the proposed technical approach and technology insertion concept. Proposed deliverable due dates may be modified accordingly.

Table 3: Track B Deliverables Deliverable Due date Description Kick-off Meeting Presentation

1 MAA Presentation that summarizes the Phase 1 plan, highlighting changes made since proposal submission and detailing the first three months of Phase 1.

Technical Interchange Meeting report (TIM) Briefing

Quarterly Briefing that describes technical achievements and plans, providing sufficient insight to inform Track A integration decision-making.

RRP Initial at kick-off, then updated quarterly

Document that defines the software maturation. Must include current risk assessment and progress against risk waterfalls.

IMS Quarterly Integrated schedule, incorporating detailed plans.

Technical Status Teleconference

Monthly Teleconference to discuss progress over the previous month and plans for the upcoming month.

Test plan(s) 2 weeks prior to start of test

Report that defines test objectives, approach, and quantitative success criteria traceable to performance objectives.

Technical and financial status report

Monthly Report that provides technical, financial, and schedule updates.

Critical Technology Deliverable

14 MAA Technical data, software, and/or hardware as applicable.

Final report 15 MAA Report that details all Phase 1 activities, capturing top-level results of all trade studies, design performance analyses, tests, and products.

Phase 2 Base (provided for program vision)

Phase 2 Base is anticipated to be 12 months long and will have a single track. Phase 2 is not covered under this BAA and will be solicited for under a separate, forthcoming BAA. The Phase 2 BAA will include classified documents describing target scenarios, satellite constellation resources, and ground resources. The Phase 2 BAA will also describe interfaces to the Government M&S environment.

By the end of Phase 2 Base, performers will deliver applications and services that will run in the Government M&S environment to assess performance against BAA objectives (Spiral

2). Phase 2 includes the “Virtual Flyoff”, which is a demonstration of performer-developed software running on representative space hardware in the Government M&S environment.

Phase 2 Option (provided for program vision)

A Phase 2 Option is anticipated to be 18 months long. In Phase 2 Option, performer applications and services will be integrated into on-orbit spacecraft processors. Phase 2 Option will culminate with an LVC demonstration of Oversight applications and services using a combination of actual spacecraft and simulated spacecraft in the Government M&S environment.

The Phase 2 Option demonstration will include the use of live or surrogate targets provided by the Government.

F. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

The Performer will execute appropriate program reviews. Track A program reviews will include a Software Requirements Review (SRR) and a Spiral 1 Design Review (with an option for a Delta Spiral 1). Specific expectations for Oversight program reviews are outlined below, and should be incorporated into the performer’s comprehensive list of tailored design review criteria, which will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed software engineering processes. In addition, these lists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews. Any changes or updates to the entrance and exit criteria during phases must be provided to the Government and approved, as indicated in the deliverables table.

General:

• Requirements Development – A complete set of interfaces, demonstration system performance, and design requirements is established for the subject review. Each requirement must include verification provisions. System interfaces are identified and documented.

• Design Definition – The design of the software architecture is established for the subject review, satisfies established requirements, and is sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition. Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

• Risk Management – Technical, cost, and schedule risks are identified and assessed (e.g., consequence and likelihood). Mitigation plans are in place along with associated completion criteria. Technical risks have been updated with results of any mitigation activities.

• Technology Maturation – Software attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives have been documented. The representative test article design is documented.

SRR:

• Requirements Development – Derived technical performance measures and developed requirements for the overall software architecture are complete. Preliminary requirements for individual applications and services within the architecture are developed. Spiral 1 requirements should include integration with the Government M&S environment.

• Software Architecture Design – The software architecture approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. A pathway to the Spiral 1 design is identified.

• Modes and states – A complete set of modes and states are provided to meet mission needs. Each mode and state should be traceable to a system requirement.

• Software Development – A software development plan exists, including the verification and validation approach.

• Trade Studies – Feasibility analysis and trade studies are completed to validate the design approach.

• Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented.

Spiral 1 Design Review:

• Requirements Development – Requirements for the overall software architecture and for individual applications and services within the architecture are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., Analysis, Integration, Test, and Demonstration) are identified.

Interfaces are documented. Requirements and interfaces should include integration with the Government simulation environment.

• Design Definition – Assess the allocated design documented in software requirements.

Initial prototype design is complete, closes around documented requirements, and adequately demonstrates that performance achieves objectives.

• Modes and states – An updated set of modes and states are provided to meet mission needs. Each mode and state should be traceable to a system requirement.

• Command and data list – A complete list, including descriptions, of software commands and data that are used within the software architecture is provided. Each command and data product should be traceable to a system requirement.

• Software Development – A development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress is provided, including integration with the Government simulation environment.

• Risk Management – A risk matrix is developed, and risk reduction activities and plans are documented.

• Technology Maturation – Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within program budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept.

• Cost – Revised cost estimates based on the Spiral 1 design are documented.

Government Management Approach and Operations: The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government team is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which may be augmented with Government-led Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) for targeted technical disciplines; for example, systems engineering, integration, M&S, etc. The performers will interface with the Government teams via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level and quarterly program management reviews. The proposers are asked to provide a management approach to allow for collaboration with the Government team to ensure a successful program.

II. Award Information A. General Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section IV.B.4, “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposals from award consideration, should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract or Other Transaction agreement, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

B. Proposals and Awards

Proposers shall prepare full proposals in accordance with the proposal format instructions detailed under Section IV to address Phase 1 (including options).

It is anticipated that the Government will request proposals for Phase 2 Base with a Phase 2 Option during Phase 1. It is anticipated that this proposal will be requested around the time of

Spiral 1. Only those Track A performers whose Phase 1 Option is exercised will be invited to submit a Phase 2 Base and Phase 2 Option proposal.

Submission of updated full proposals for future phases is optional and associated proposal preparation costs will not be reimbursed under Phase 1 awards. Performers who choose not to submit an updated full proposal for future phases will not be considered for future awards. To continue the program beyond the Phase 1 contract is the decision of the Government and will be based on Phase 1 results, Government need, the availability of funds, the determination that performers have made sufficient progress towards meeting program performance objectives, maturing the required technologies and addressing risks, and scientific review of the proposals.

Evaluations of updated full proposals for future phases will be based on evaluation criteria to be specified in the proposal request and will include consideration of Phase 1 performance.

C. Fundamental Research

It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines fundamental research as follows:

‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.

As of the date of publication of this solicitation, the Government expects that program goals as described herein may be met by proposed efforts for fundamental research and non-fundamental research. Some proposed research may present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Based on the anticipated type of proposer (e.g., university or industry) and the nature of the solicited work, the Government expects that some awards will include restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research. In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. While multiple proposals against a single track will be considered, DARPA does not intend to select the same prime performer for both Track A and Track B (a proposed subcontract performer for either track may be selected as a prime performer for the other track, however).

1. United States enterprises to include:

a) Industrial and commercial concerns, including small businesses

b) Accredited degree granting colleges and universities

c) Non-profit and not-for-profit organization

2. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government Entities

a) FFRDCs

FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this solicitation in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

All proposers are expected to address transition; transition is part of the evaluation criteria in Section V.A. However, given their special status, FFRDCs should describe how and when a proposed technology/system will transition to which Non-FFRDC organization(s).

b) Government Entities

Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government Entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

c) Authority and Eligibility

At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and Government Entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

3. Non-U.S. Organizations and/or Individuals

Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

4. Classified Proposals

For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the solicitation. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposer’s judgment and to prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.

Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.

If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the proposal must include:

http://www.dss.mil/

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the solicitation evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.

If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

Cost sharing is not required for procurement contracts under this effort; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype, see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at https://sam.gov/ or www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. All hard copies must be on 8½ inch by 11-inch paper with 1” margins. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/

1. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal. Given the scope defined under Track A and Track B, abstracts will be accepted for both Tracks individually. Abstracts should follow the same general format as described for proposals (see, “Proposal Format”) but include ONLY Sections I and II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed five (5) pages. The maximum page count excludes the cover page in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section I, and official transmittal letter but does include any figures, tables, and charts. Official transmittal letter is not required.

2. Abstract Content

Track A and Track B abstracts should provide a preliminary overview of the proposer’s critical enabling capability for Oversight. Areas to be addressed should include:

Key features of the envisioned capability and how it will enable the Oversight vision;

Description of technology’s envisioned utility relative to system level Track A effort, including data-sharing approach during execution of Track B effort;

Traceability of how envisioned capability relates to achieving program metrics;

Relevant qualifications and experience of the proposer and potential teaming partners;

Top-level schedule for Phase 1, including key maturation accomplished at each quarterly review and final deliverable.

DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to encourage or discourage a proposal submission. DARPA will attempt to reply to abstracts in writing in the order received and as expeditiously as possible. See Section VI.A.1 for additional details.

3. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of three parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 35 pages for Track A and 25 pages for Track B. Bracketed numbers before each section denote recommended page limits.

Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and managerial issues. Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to

DARPA.

NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal – Track A

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001122S0014);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE

BUSINESS,” “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” “OTHER SMALL

BUSINESS,” “HBCU,” “MI,” “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” OR “OTHER

NONPROFIT”;

(5) Proposer’s reference number (if any);

(6)…