RapidEyeBAAfinal(2).doc

Rapid Eye

Rapid Response, Long Endurance Unmanned Aircraft

System Program

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Solicitation 07-57

DATE: November 21, 2007 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DARPA/TTO

3701 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203-1714

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4Part One: Overview Information

5Part Two: Full Text of Announcement

5I.

Funding Opportunity Description

5A.

Program Overview

5B.

Program Goals

7C.

Phase I Objectives

10D.

Phase II Objectives

10E.

Phase III and IV Objectives

10F.

Phase I Schedule And Deliverables

14G.

Program Metrics

16II.

Award Information

16III.

Eligibility Information

16A.

Eligible Applicants

171.

Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest

18B.

Cost Sharing/Matching

18C.

Proposing an Other Transaction

19IV.

Application and Submission Information

19A.

Address to Request Application Package

19B.

Content and Form of Application Submission

191.

Proposal Information

27C.

Submission Dates and Times

271.

Proposal Date

29V.

Application Review Information

29A.

Evaluation Criteria

291.

Point of Departure Objective System Concept and Substantiation

302.

Overall Scientific Approach

313.

Management and Program Team

314.

Cost

32B.

Review and Selection Process

33VI.

Award Administration Information

33A.

Award Notices

33B.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

331.

Security

352.

Intellectual Property

403.

Meeting and travel requirements

404.

Human use

415.

Animal Use

416.

Publication approval

417.

Export Control

428.

Subcontracting

42C.

Reporting Requirements

421.

Central Contractor Registration

422.

Representations and Certifications

433.

Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF)

43VII.

Agency Contacts

43VIII.

Other Information

43A. None

Part One: Overview Information

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

· Funding Opportunity Title – Rapid Eye

· Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

· Funding Opportunity Number – Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) 07-57

· Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) (N/A)

· Dates:

· Proposal Due: January 16, 2008

· Description of the funding opportunity: Rapid Eye is an exploratory development program to develop a persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) system that can be launched to anywhere in the world from an alert pad, reenter and deploy in fewer than 2 orbits and has the ability to loiter for sufficient time to allow other assets to relieve it. This system will provide dramatic new capability to the U.S. military by being able to arrive on station significantly faster than any alternative continental United States (CONUS)-based assets and yet loiter longer than high speed systems. The Rapid Eye system will provide regional ISR coverage with satellite quality imagery for a minimum of 7 hours.

The Rapid Eye program will conduct design trade studies to define an optimal system solution, perform risk reduction on critical technologies including subscale component testing, and conduct a flight test of the end-to-end Rapid Eye system. It is envisioned that this program will at a minimum develop and demonstrate technologies associated with the design of a deployable aircraft with sufficient loiter speed, endurance and power to achieve Rapid Eye performance goals; packaging of a high-aspect ratio aircraft into a rocket fairing; the design of a re-entry decelerator with low stowed volume and mass that can slow a reentry vehicle (RV) high in the atmosphere; and the demonstration of efficient propulsion in a low oxygen, low speed environment. The Government is not interested in solutions employing buoyant flight or radioactive power.

The Government is soliciting proposals for a four phase program. The estimates and plans for Phases II-IV will be updated by the end of Phase I. Funding decisions for subsequent phases will be based on a proposal update at the end of Phase I and the satisfaction of programmatic and technical go/no-go criteria.

· Total amount of money to be awarded: The amount of resources made available to this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received.

· Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

· Types of instruments that may be awarded -- Procurement contract or Other Transaction.

· No cost sharing is required for this BAA – See Section III-B

· Agency technical contact:

Dr. Wade Pulliam DARPA/Tactical Technology Office

ATTN: BAA 07-57

3701 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203-1714

Fax: (703) 696-8401 or 2204 Electronic mail: BAA07-57@darpa.mil Part Two: Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. The BAA will appear first on the FedBizOpps website, http://www.fedbizopps.gov/, then the agency website of http://www.darpa.mil/tto/solicitations.htm. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

A. Program Overview

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is seeking innovative solutions that will expand the knowledge base and design capabilities for Rapid Eye, a program with the overall goal of developing and demonstrating the ability to rapidly deliver a persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability anywhere on the globe and remain on-station until relieved or the mission is completed. It is envisioned that this program will, at a minimum, develop and demonstrate all the technologies necessary for the rocket delivery of a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV). The use of a BAA solicitation allows a wide range of innovative ideas and concepts. The offeror(s) will have the flexibility to develop a tailored program plan that best advances the Rapid Eye program goals.

B. Program Goals

The ability to deploy a persistent ISR platform anywhere in the world through the use of a launch system would provide a dramatic new capability to the US military. The Rapid Eye system will allow the military to rapidly respond world-wide to developing situations and quickly provide decision-makers with the persistent coverage of time-critical events. This capability will permit the military to monitor unexpected events and maintain that coverage until other assets can be put into place.

The Government’s point of departure system architecture consists of: (i) rocket delivery of a HALE UAV on a ballistic track to the approximate area of interest (ii) deceleration of the launch package from reentry speeds to the UAV deployment speed, (iii) deployment of the UAV and start of its propulsion system, and (iv) the ability to carry a persistent ISR on-station at high altitudes from the UAV for a minimum of seven hours. The air vehicle ISR payload is nominally 500 lbs with a 5kW power requirement. Technologies of interest may include: low ballistic coefficient aerodynamic decelerators; low stored volume, deployable UAV structures; and high efficiency propulsion systems for vehicles operating at high altitudes. Other advanced technologies may also be developed and demonstrated as required by the architectures proposed by offerors. The Government is interested in an end-to-end design solution for Rapid Eye.

The Rapid Eye program seeks to 1) develop a robust system design that maximizes military utility at a reasonable cost; 2) identify and mature critical enabling technologies; and 3) validate through simulation, ground test and flight demonstration that a Rapid Eye system solution is achievable.

DARPA has established the following non-tradable requirements for the objective Rapid Eye system:

· System must have the capability for worldwide-delivery of a deployable aircraft from an alert pad

· System must use no more than two START treaty-compliant launch sites

· Reentry and deployment of the ISR aircraft must occur within 2 orbits

· The system could reenter directly on a ballistic track or allow an additional orbit to increase global coverage

· System must use an existing solid-rocket launch system

· DARPA desires a capability that can be launched with minimal modification to the proposed launch system. DARPA will consider proposals that require minor modifications to existing fairing systems (including changes that alter the fairing outer mold line). It is up to the bidder to provide the analysis to support the assertion that the additional cost of changing the fairing (including flight qualification of the modifications) versus the added capability of the system will provide the best value to the Government

· Aircraft must have time-on-station greater than 7 hours

· DARPA defines on-station as the continuous capability to carry out the primary mission as defined by the military utility trade studies conducted during Phase I of the program.

· Aircraft must have loiter speed greater than the 99 percentile winds at mission altitude

· DARPA defines 99% loiter speed as the speed necessary to have an aggregate probability of remaining on-station for the proposed time-on-station at the proposed operational altitude over 99% of the time given a random launch time and random launch location within the bidder defined global coverage area. The loiter speed requirement is based upon the speed necessary to remain on station against prevailing winds at that altitude. The capability to reposition once deployed, which would require a higher speed, is desirable, but not a specific requirement. The coverage footprint will be determined by the military utility trade studies conducted during Phase I of the program.

· Aircraft payload weight must be at least 500 lbs

· The payload is considered to include all ISR sensors, computational systems and necessary communication systems

· Aircraft must generate an average of at least 5kW dedicated to powering the aircraft payload

· Aircraft must use wing-borne, not buoyant, flight

· Aircraft may not employ radioactive power sources.

DARPA has also determined that the following attributes are desirable for the system but are not requirements for the objective Rapid Eye system:

· Recovery of the aircraft at a friendly or neutral airfield is preferable. In the event that recovery is not possible, the destruction of the payload and sensitive materials/subsystems should be considered.

· Safe disposal of the atmospheric decelerator

· Delivery of the aircraft should be sufficiently accurate to allow immediate commencement of the defined primary mission

Offerors will be asked to explore the design space for the non-tradable and desired attributes to develop their best concept for an objective system design considering military utility, mission management, operations and support, reliability and affordability. Based on this objective system concept, offerors will derive a demonstration system and technology maturation plan that outlines an overall risk reduction strategy for the Rapid Eye system culminating in flight test demonstration.

The Rapid Eye program will be conducted in four phases:

· Phase I: System Conceptual Design, Risk Reduction, and Demonstration Planning

· Phase II: Risk Reduction and Preliminary Design of Demonstration System

· Phase III: Demonstration System Detail Design

· Phase IV: Demonstration System Fabrication and Flight Test

Each phase will progressively mature the design and technologies required to validate the ability to achieve the Rapid Eye system performance goals described above and move incrementally toward the objective system. The following sections describe the specific technical objectives of each phase.

C. Phase I Objectives

The top-level Phase I objectives are as follows:

· Conduct system-level design, concept of operations (CONOPS) and military utility trade studies for the objective Rapid Eye system

· Conduct detailed technology trade studies in areas including launch systems, atmospheric reentry decelerators, and aircraft design. Technologies of concern may include advanced propulsion and deployable structures

· Develop a Rapid Eye Objective System (REOS) conceptual design

· Derive and develop a Rapid Eye Demonstration System (REDS) design (based on the REOS) culminating in SRR

· Develop a detailed Technology Maturation Plan that provides an integrated risk reduction strategy and achieves REDS flight test demonstration in Phase IV

· Optionally perform early risk-reduction on high risk/high payoff technologies, e.g inflatable/deployable wings, low ballistic coefficient re-entry systems, or the use of metal hydride for high altitude propulsion or any other alternative high altitude propulsion system System level non-tradable design requirements for the REOS were provided in Section B. The system-level design, CONOPS and military utility trade studies will help to further define the REOS conceptual design. Based on the objective system level requirements, the offeror will perform design trade studies on the aircraft and atmospheric decelerator. The objective of this effort is to assess alternative technical approaches from the standpoint of feasibility, performance, and technological maturity. Offerors should define any additional trade studies that may be necessary to help develop an optimal REOS system level conceptual design and define requirements for the atmospheric decelerator and aircraft components. At a minimum, the Government expects the offeror to perform trades in the following areas:

· CONOPS

· Timeline to area of operation – from mission go-ahead to system operating on station

· Launch site alternatives

· Launch system selection

· Possible slight fairing modifications

· Global coverage from selected bases

· Reentry decelerator

· Disposal of rocket stages and decelerator

· Aircraft delivery accuracy

· Aircraft deployment alternatives

· Operating altitude and impact on payload performance/utility

· Deployable wing technology and design

· Aircraft propulsion system

· Aircraft thermal management

· Aircraft endurance goal

· Aircraft cruise speed

· Payload packages and capabilities (e.g. resolution and coverage areas)

· Survivability (e.g., altitude, speed, mission planning)

· Recovery strategy for aircraft and/or payload

· Mission success probability

· System reliability

· Affordability (e.g. cost per mission and operations and maintenance cost)

· Supportability – including on-pad servicing

· Level of autonomy/mission management approach

The results of the design trade studies will be iterated with the system level design trade studies to come up with a robust final REOS conceptual design. The Government may elect to establish a common set of ground rules and assumptions early in Phase I to ensure that all offerors are conducting consistent analyses.

Based on the final REOS conceptual design, the offeror will derive a REDS design. The goal of the REDS is to enable an affordable flight test demonstration of the key technologies that will validate the potential for full REOS functionality but without all of the features required for an operational vehicle. It is expected that the offeror will implement a rigorous system engineering process and system engineering tools in Phase I for defining and allocating the system requirements from the REOS down to the REDS. These systems engineering processes will extend across all Phases of the program and provide a robust framework for linking and managing all aspects of the REDS design. By the end of Phase I, REDS design shall have sufficient maturity to hold a tailored System Requirements Review, as described in Section I-F.

The REDS conceptual design will be used as the basis for developing a detailed technology maturation plan (TMP) that 1) identifies and assesses critical technologies, processes and system attributes (TPSAs) that constitute the major technical and system integration risks on the program; 2) identifies major Phase II and III risk reduction tests and demonstrations, including subscale component tests in Phases II and III, required to validate the ability to achieve the overall Rapid Eye program goals with a REDS test in Phase IV; 3) defines credible intermediate performance objectives (success criteria) associated with critical tests and demonstrations, and 4) defines an integrated program for systematically reducing risk that meets the Phase II, III and IV objectives, including quantified go/no go criteria at the end of Phases II and III. This TMP is a major Phase I deliverable and will be the foundation of the performer’s Phase II, III and IV program plans.

At a minimum, the TMP developed in Phase I shall address the following items during Phase II:

· Demonstration of a propulsion system, including heat rejection, to provide the required electrical power and thrust levels in the representative environment selected by the Phase I military utility analysis

· Demonstration through a representative test of a subscale atmospheric decelerator at the same ballistic coefficient as defined by the REDS design

· Demonstration of subscale wing deployment with the REDS wing loading defined and subsequent pull-up to level flight at the altitude defined by the Phase I military utility analysis

This is not an all inclusive list of risk areas. The contractor is expected to address these items along with other risk areas specific to their system concept and architecture.

The offeror may identify other high risk technologies where subsystem design or independent tests/demonstrations could be conducted with a reasonable budget during Phase I to help advance the technical maturity and ensure feasibility, should that technology be selected for the offeror’s REOS. Offerors are asked to propose separate options to the Phase I contract for each technology risk reduction activity. Each option task should include quantifiable success metrics for the risk reduction activities proposed. Risk reduction results must be available not later than 9 months after award to ensure the results are available to support the offeror’s Phase II proposal update. The government will assess these optional tasks individually based on best value to the government and availability of funding.

Specific Phase I deliverables are defined in detail for each 3-month program review in Section I-F, Phase I Schedule and Deliverables.

D. Phase II Objectives

The decision to continue the program into Phase II will be based upon the Government’s determination that one or more performers have successfully completed the Phase I exit criteria, defined in Section II-G, as well as the availability of Phase II funds.

In Phase II, the performer will execute its Phase II TMP. It is envisioned that the offeror will perform a significant amount of subsystem/component testing during Phase II. Examples of potential Phase II risk reduction activities include stored wing deployment, wind tunnel and high altitude drop testing; subscale decelerator reentry testing; and engine performance testing at appropriate conditions. Based on the results of the Phase II risk reduction activities, the performer shall update its TMP for Phases III and IV. In parallel, the performer will also continue to mature its REDS design, incorporating any impacts from risk reduction results and culminating in preliminary design review (PDR) at the end of Phase II. As needed, the performer shall also update its REOS, CONOPS and military utility analyses.

Additional Phase II objectives may be established based on the results of Phase I design trade studies and risk reduction activities. The Government intends to provide updated Phase II guidance prior to Phase II proposal update.

E. Phase III and IV Objectives

The decision to continue the program into Phase III will be based upon the Government’s determination that one or more performers have successfully completed the Phase II exit criteria as well as the availability of Phase III funds.

In Phase III the performer will continue execution of its TMP. The primary Phase III objective is to complete detail design of the REDS culminating in critical design review (CDR) at the end of Phase III. More detailed Phase III objectives will be developed based on Phase II results and the performer’s TMP.

Likewise, the decision to continue the program into Phase IV will be based upon the Government’s determination that one or more performers have successfully completed the Phase III exit criteria as well as the availability of Phase IV funds. The objective of Phase IV will be to complete REDS fabrication and conduct flight test demonstration.

F. Phase I Schedule And Deliverables

The Government envisions holding periodic program reviews throughout Phase I. As required, the Government team will also support interim technical interchange meetings and/or telecons. The Initial Design Review, Final Trade Study and Conceptual Design Update, REDS Design and TMP Review, and REDS SRR shall be conducted at the offeror’s facility. The Final TMP and Phase II Proposal Update shall be conducted in the Washington, DC metro area at a Government specified site or the offeror’s local facility. The Final TMP and Phase II Proposal Update meeting is envisioned to be a shorter review where the performer will only present its final TMP and Phase II proposal update.

The following sections describe the deliverables desired at each review. The offeror is free to propose an alternate schedule of deliverables as appropriate for its concept for The Initial Deign Review and Final Trade Study and Conceptual Design Update, however the REDS Design and TMP Review, The Final TMP and Phase II Proposal Update, and REDS SRR deliverables should be proposed as described below to ensure the Government is provided with sufficient information to evaluate Phase I exit criteria and make a decision regarding program continuation into Phase II. For risk reduction option tasks, the offeror’s proposal should include proposed deliverables for each review as appropriate for each option.

Initial Design Review – Three (3) Months After Award

· Initial Results of CONOPS, System Level and Technology Trades: The performer shall describe in detail the trade studies conducted to develop its notional system CONOPS and develop its REOS conceptual design. At a minimum the performer shall present the results of the trade studies defined in Section I-C. The performer shall present the results of modeling and simulation and other quantitative analyses, as well as the major assumptions. The Government is interested in the process and substantiation for the trades, which are just as important as the results of the trades.

· REOS Conceptual Design: The performer shall conduct a review of its Rapid Eye objective system conceptual design. This review shall include a detailed description of the overall system architecture – not just the air vehicle portion of the system.

· Initial Technology Maturation Plan Review: Throughout Phase I, the performer shall develop a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) to provide the Government with the fiscal and technical information necessary to support a long-term acquisition strategy. The final TMP will define the performer’s overall approach to mitigating risk and maturing its Rapid Eye demonstration system design. The TMP should define the major demonstration building blocks that incorporate all risk reduction, technology and process development and maturation, and operational evaluation activities that must be conducted throughout Phases II, III and IV of the program. By the end of Phase I, the plan will also include detailed cost and schedule for these activities, as well as identify any external Government R&D activities that are critical to maturing the system. The initial TMP will explicitly address the following:

· Risk management process

· Risk assessment results

· Critical technologies, processes and system attributes (TPSAs) identified

· Risk Reduction Task Review: If applicable, the performer will describe progress on risk reduction option tasks consistent with proposed deliverables.

Final Trade Study and Conceptual Design Update – Six (6) Months After Award

· Final Results of CONOPS, System Level and Technology Trades: The performer shall provide its final trade study results based on Government feedback at Review 1, as well as lessons learned from subsequent objective and demonstration system design activities.

· Final Rapid Eye Objective System (REOS) Conceptual Design: The performer shall describe its final conceptual design for the objective system. It is expected that a significant portion of the system functional requirements will be established. This review shall provide the outer mold line of the system (with a detailed breakdown of estimated weights), include the arrangements of all major subsystems, and include initial aero-performance analysis that demonstrates that the proposed system meets system level requirements.

· Initial Conceptual Design of Rapid Eye Demonstration System (REDS): The performer shall conduct a review of its initial REDS design. This review should present the quantitative results of design trade studies and risk mitigation assessments that led to the performer’s preferred design. This review shall include a detailed description of the overall demonstration system architecture – not just the air vehicle portion of the system. The performer should substantiate how the demonstration system design provides direct risk reduction and has legacy to the objective system design. The REDS design should take affordability into account and is not expected to include all of the features that might be present in the REOS (e.g., survivability).

· TMP Review: The performer shall present its updated TMP. By this review, the TMP shall be updated to include a list of major risk reduction building blocks (e.g. simulations, demonstrations, software builds) required to mature each of the TPSAs in support of the Phase IV flight demonstrations.

· Risk Reduction Task Review: If applicable, the performer will describe progress on risk reduction option tasks consistent with proposed deliverables.

REDS Design and TMP Review – Nine (9) Months After Award

· Final Conceptual Design of the REDS: The performer shall describe its final conceptual design for the REDS. It is expected that a draft of all of the system and segment functional requirements will be established and quantified. The performer shall also have completed draft functional flow block diagrams (FFBDs) for the entire system. The design review shall provide the outer mold line of the system (with a detailed breakdown of estimated weights), include the arrangements of all major subsystems, and include initial aero-performance analysis that demonstrates that the proposed system meets system level requirements. The performer shall describe the planned functionality and flight test objectives for the REDS.

· TMP Review: The performer shall present its updated TMP. By this review, the TMP shall include a complete set of risk reduction waterfalls for each critical TPSA. The TMP shall also include a list of all proposed Phase II, III and IV risk reduction events, along with the objectives and success metrics for each activity.

· Final Results of Risk Reduction Tasks: If applicable, the performer will describe the final results of its risk reduction option tasks consistent with proposed deliverables. The performer shall review these results against the technical success metrics provided in the proposal and describe any impacts of these results on the REOS and REDS designs.

Final TMP and Phase II Proposal Update – Ten (10) Months After Award

· Final TMP Review: The performer shall present its final TMP. By this review, the TMP shall be finalized to include Phase II, III and IV schedules to at least Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Level 4, Phase II cost to at least WBS Level 4 and Phase III and IV rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs to at least WBS Level 3.

· Updated Phase II Technical and Cost Proposal Presentation and Submittal

REDS SRR – Twelve (12) Months After Award

· System Requirements Review (SRR) of the REDS: The SRR shall define all aspects of the REDS. The requirements should have direct legacy to the REOS capabilities and the functions required to conduct the demonstrations defined in the TMP. The review encompasses the total system requirements, e.g., launch vehicle, fairing, atmospheric decelerator, air vehicle, mission control, computer software, operations/maintenance, facilities, personnel, and preliminary logistic support considerations. This review should also describe the Systems Engineering Process that produced the system requirements products. Specific review items are as follows:

· Functional Flow Analysis

· REDS capabilities, states & modes

· Final system requirements mapped to performance capabilities

· Requirements & Requirements Allocation

· Final System Requirements with traceability to source and methods proposed to verify/validate requirements.

· Draft segment requirements

· Draft interfaces defined and quantified at segment level

· Trade Study Results

· Integrated Test/Lab Demonstration Planning

· Test objectives defined

· Preliminary test planning

· Program Risk Analysis

· Risk management and mitigation planning

· Risk assessment (e.g. 5x5 risk cube)

· Technology maturation planning

· System/segment risk waterfalls

· Technical Performance Metrics

· Demonstrator Design Concept

· Block diagram

· Schematics

· 3D CAD physical layout to the component level

· Weight estimate/budgets

· Software architecture

· System specification

· System integration approach

· Software & hardware quality assurance planning

· Mission and Requirements Analysis

· Design Reference Missions

· CONOPS

· Phase II, III and IV Systems Engineering

· Process

· Organization

· Configuration management

· Phase I Final Report: The performer shall submit an annotated briefing detailing all of its Phase I activities.

G. Program Metrics

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed solutions in achieving the stated program objectives, exit criteria have been established for each program phase. These exit criteria will serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. The Government has identified these metrics with the intention of bounding the scope of the effort, while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in developing proposed solutions. The Government has defined the following exit criteria for Phase I and II. The Phase II exit criteria are preliminary and will be updated based on the military utility analyses and the offerors’ TMPs, in conjunction with the Phase II proposal guidance issued during Phase I. Phase III exit criteria shall also be established in the Phase II proposal guidance, based on the offerors’ final TMPs.

Phase I Exit Criteria

· REOS conceptual design supported by performance assessment with appropriate analysis, models and simulations to substantiate that:

· System uses no more than two START treaty-compliant launch sites

· System has capability for delivery of a deployable aircraft from an alert pad to over 80% of the world’s landmass

· Aircraft time-on-station greater than 7 hours

· Aircraft loiter speed greater than the 99 percentile winds at mission altitude

· Aircraft payload weight allocation of at least 500 lbs

· Aircraft will generate at least 5kW average power dedicated to powering the aircraft payload

· Reentry and deployment of the ISR aircraft will occur within 2 orbits

· System uses an existing solid-rocket launch system with minimum modifications

· Analysis of utility of REOS concept in the context of realistic operational scenarios, substantiated by appropriate models and simulations

· Tailored MilSTD SRR of the REDS to include at a minimum:

· Acceptable delivery of SRR deliverable items detailed above in Section F

· Demonstrated traceability of the REDS design to the REOS

· Analytical demonstration that the REDS can support a successful Phase IV flight test demonstration

· System level models demonstrating that the REDS SRR design satisfies the size, weight, and power margins

· Updated detailed proposal for Phase II, III and IV, including a TMP that incorporates all risk reduction activities required to meet system objectives. Proposal shall include clearly defined, quantifiable go/no-go criteria for the end of each phase.

Phase II Exit Criteria

· Successful completion of the REDS PDR to include at a minimum:

· System level models, refined through experimentation, sub-system demonstrations and other technology maturation/validation activities, demonstrating a mission capable REDS PDR design with size, weight, and power margins

· REDS preliminary design supported by performance assessment with appropriate analysis, risk reduction experimentation, modeling and simulations to substantiate that

· System uses no more than two START treaty-compliant launch sites

· System has capability for delivery of a deployable aircraft from an alert pad to over 80% of the world’s landmass

· Aircraft time-on-station greater than 7 hours

· Aircraft loiter speed greater than the 99 percentile winds at mission altitude

· Aircraft payload weight allocation of at least 500 lbs

· Aircraft will generate at least 5kW average power dedicated to powering the aircraft payload

· Reentry and deployment of the ISR aircraft will occur within 2 orbits

· System uses an existing solid-rocket launch system with minimum modifications

· Component/subsystem testing, experimentation, and analysis to provide quantitative evidence that the REDS will meet the Phase IV flight test demonstration objectives and meet the go/no-go criteria defined in the TMP. At a minimum, these go/no-go criteria include:

· Demonstration of a propulsion system, including heat rejection, to provide the PDR-defined electrical power and thrust levels for 7 hours in the representative environment defined by the Phase I analysis

· Demonstration through a representative test of a subscale atmospheric decelerator at the same ballistic coefficient as defined by the REDS design at PDR

· Demonstration of subscale wing deployment and subsequent pull-up to level flight at the mission altitude with the REDS wing loading defined at PDR

II. 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 offerors. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority later determines them 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 will be opened with that offeror. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work at the end of one or more of the phases.

The Government intends to use this BAA award to cover the entirety of the Rapid Eye program and does not plan to conduct a new competition for Phases II, III or IV. During Phase I, the Government will release an updated Phase II statement of objectives. This update will provide additional detail on the objectives, planned schedule/deliverables and proposal guidance for Phase II. The Government intends to provide this information approximately 7 months after Phase I award.

Awards under this BAA will be made to offerors on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see section labeled “Application Review Information”, Sec. V.), and program balance to provide overall best value to the Government. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a Procurement contract or Other Transaction depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors. Offerors should note that the required degree of interaction between parties, regardless of award instrument, will be high and continuous.

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. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of this research for exclusive competition among these entities. Independent proposals from Government/National laboratories may be subject to applicable direct competition limitations, though certain Federally Funded Research and Development Centers are excepted per P.L. 103-337§ 217 and P.L 105-261 § 3136. Proposers from Government/ National Laboratories must provide documentation to DARPA to establish that they are eligible to propose and have unique capabilities not otherwise available in private industry.

Classified participation is limited to U.S. firms. The offeror may include foreign partners or personnel as subcontractors as part of their proposed resources as long as these entities comply with any necessary Non-Disclosure Agreements, Security Regulations, Export Control Laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

1. Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest

Certain post-employment restrictions on former federal officers and employees may exist, including special Government employees (including but not limited to Title 18, Section 207, United States Code, the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. 423, and FAR 3.104). Current federal employees are prohibited from participating in particular matters involving conflicting financial, employment, and representational interests (18 USC 203, 205, and 208.) The Program Manager is required to review and evaluate all proposals received under this BAA and to manage all selected efforts.

All offerors and proposed subcontractors must affirm whether they are providing scientific, engineering, and technical assistance (SETA) or similar support to any DARPA technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must state which office(s) the offeror supports and identify the prime contract numbers. Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposal submission. All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. The disclosure shall include a description of the action the offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. In accordance with FAR 9.503 and without prior approval or a waiver from the DARPA Director, a Contractor cannot simultaneously be a SETA and Performer. Proposals that fail to fully disclose potential conflicts of interests or do not have plans to mitigate all conflicts will be returned without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

If a prospective offeror believes that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise), the offeror should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending offeror's contact information and a summary of the potential conflict by email to the mailbox address for this BAA at BAA07-57@darpa.mil, before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan. If, in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, any conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal may be returned without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award under this BAA.

B. Cost Sharing/Matching

Cost sharing is not required for this particular program; however, cost sharing will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument (e.g., for any Other Transactions under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371). Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

C. Proposing an Other Transaction

The Government contemplates the award of a Cost-type Procurement contract in accordance with the FAR; however, this BAA affords Offerors the option of submitting proposals for an Other Transaction for Prototype Agreement (OT), as well. Offerors must submit a proposal for a Procurement Contract before any considerations will be given to proposals for an OT. In addition, all proposals for OTs must be in accordance with applicable authority for such an award. The Government reserves the right to negotiate the type of award instrument determined appropriate under the circumstances.

For additional information on OT for Prototype Agreements, including eligibility requirements, please consult the “Other Transactions” (OT) Guide for Prototype Projects available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/other_transactions.htm.

If an offeror elects to submit an OT proposal, it should submit a third proposal volume entitled, “Volume III, OT Based Delta Proposal”. Volume III should discuss how an OT would offer a better value to the Government in the Rapid Eye Program. This volume must outline the extent to which the other transaction will contribute to a broadening of the technology and industrial base available for meeting Department of Defense needs and the extent to which the other transaction will foster new relationships and practices within the technology and industrial base that support the national security of the United States. Volume III should clearly identify changes to the Volume I and II no-cost-share technical and cost proposals that result from use of an OT. If there are no differences, the offeror should state this in Volume III of its proposal. After award selection, OT proposals from the successful offeror(s), if any, will be opened and evaluated. Any cost-share an offeror proposes in Volume III shall be constructed to include distinct, significant, value-added activities covering the entire Rapid Eye program and should leverage the flexibilities offered by OT provisions, instead of providing only a general increase in level of effort.

At a minimum, the following outline shall be used for Volume III:

OT Technical Response: The offeror shall clearly delineate all additional work that can be performed within the OT agreement. The offeror shall provide a top level summary as well as a “red-lined” Statement of Work (SOW) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that highlight any additional tasks being performed as compared to the Volume 1 proposal. The offeror shall ensure that any additional activities build upon the baseline Phase I program to provide compelling additional value to the program (e.g., additional risk reduction tasks and demonstrations, earlier achievement of key milestones, etc.). Offerors must also include a top-level discussion of differences in Phase II and Phase III demonstration plans if executed under an OT.

OT Cost Response: The offeror shall provide cost information in the format described in Appendix A. Offerors must also include a ROM estimate of the potential cost of Phase II and Phase III efforts under an OT agreement, consistent with the Phase II and Phase III plans.

Company Investments: The offeror shall provide a total estimated price for the major cost-share activities associated with the program. The offeror shall clearly state whether these investments are to be included within the agreement and will break out each item (i.e. cash, IR&D, capital, G&A, cost of money, etc).

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement contains all information required to submit a proposal. No additional forms, kits, or other materials are needed. This notice constitutes the total BAA. No additional information is available, nor will a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) or additional solicitation regarding this announcement be issued. Requests for same will be disregarded.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

1. Proposal Information

Proposals not meeting the format described in the BAA may not be reviewed. All administrative correspondence and questions on this solicitation, including requests for information on how to submit a proposal to this BAA, should be directed to BAA07-57@DARPA.MIL or send facsimiles with DARPA/TTO, BAA 07-57 to (703) 696-8401. Questions and answers and other BAA related documents may be found on the BAA website: http://www.darpa.mil/tto/solicitations.htm. DARPA intends to use electronic mail and fax for correspondence regarding BAA 07-57. Proposals may not be submitted by fax or e-mail; any so sent may be disregarded. DARPA encourages use of the Internet for retrieving the BAA and any other related information that may subsequently be provided. See Section IV-C below for submittal instructions.

a) Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the following format. Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without further review. Proposals must be on single-sided pages, written in English, with 1-inch margins (left, right, top, and bottom) in each page. A page is defined as being no larger than 8.5” by 11.0”. (Accordion-style foldouts will be counted as multiple pages equivalent to the expanded size.) The body text of the Technical Proposal shall contain no smaller than 12 point font type. Information presented in tables/graphs and accordion-style fold-outs may use a type font smaller than 12 point as necessary to display such information; however, respondents are cautioned that excessive use of smaller fonts may adversely affect the Government’s ability to evaluate such information in a timely fashion. Graphic material shall be embedded in the Word document using GIF or JPEG format. The Cost Proposal shall contain no smaller than 8 point font type and provide requested information in the format described in Appendix A. Larger font type for the Cost Proposal, up to 12 point font type, is desired, where possible. Paper copies of proposals should be stapled or submitted in loose-leaf binder, not bound. Electronic copies shall be submitted on IBM PC-formatted CD-ROM in a format readable with Microsoft Office 2003 or earlier.

A complete proposal shall consist of two volumes—a Technical Proposal (Volume I) and a Cost Proposal (Volume II). Offerors shall submit a total of nine (9) copies of Volume I and nine (9) copies of Volume II in hardcopy as well as two (2) copies of each proposal in electronic format to DARPA. All graphics and tables, as well as the offeror’s IMS in MS Project format, shall be included in separate electronic files on the CDs. Respondents need only submit one (1) original signed proposal along with the copies. Each submittal shall reference BAA 07-57. The technical volume may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished), which document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included with the submission. The bibliography and attached papers (in Section VII of Volume I) are not included in the page counts given below. The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposal is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Sections II-VI of Volume I shall not exceed fifty (50) pages total, excluding the offeror’s statement of work and integrated master schedule. The page limitation for proposals includes all figures, tables (except the table of contents and front matter), and charts. If the offeror submits a classified addendum, this addendum is also counted towards the 50 page limit. All pages that exceed the maximum page limit specified will be removed and not be reviewed or considered in the evaluation. The Cost Proposal Volume does not have a page limit.

b) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

The Government has devised a WBS to provide a common numbering system that ties all program elements together. This numbering system will integrate the SOW, IMS and cost proposal. Offerors shall use this common WBS and numbering system throughout all proposal and program documentation.

This section describes the level 3 WBS as viewed by the Government. This is an initial framework and is not intended to be all-inclusive. The offeror’s WBS shall be consistent with the Government’s WBS to level 2. However, the offeror shall tailor and augment this WBS at level 3 and below as appropriate for its proposed system. The offeror’s WBS, SOW, IMS and cost proposal must be consistent at all levels. Proposals must define Phase I work through at least level 4. Phase II, III and IV work may be defined at level 2 in the Phase I proposal.

Outline Level

Code

0.0 Rapid Eye Program

1.0 Systems Engineering

1.1 Military Utility Modeling and Simulation

1.2 Requirements Development

1.3 Configuration Management

1.4 Risk Management

1.5 Security

1.6 Software

1.7 System Demonstration Planning

2.0 Mission Management and Control

2.1 Subsystem engineering

2.2 Physical Infrastructure

2.2.1 Control Station

2.3 Software

2.3.1 Processing Architecture

2.3.2 Software Architecture

2.4 Mission Planning

2.4.1 Launch & Recovery

2.4.2 Flight Planning

2.4.3 Systems Management

2.5 Air Vehicle Management

2.5.1 Autonomous Flight

2.5.2 Flight Termination

2.6 Contingency Management

2.7 Human-Machine Interface

2.7.1 Mission Control Interface

2.7.2 Situation Awareness

2.8 Communications

2.8.1 Vehicle

2.8.2 Internal

2.8.3 External

2.9 Mission Control Segment Integration & Test

3.0 Space System

3.1 Space Vehicle

3.1.1 Spacecraft Bus

3.1.2 Communications

3.1.3 Booster Adapter

3.1.4 Launch Systems Integration and Test

3.1.5 Launch Operations and Mission Support

3.2 Launch…