stt_ram_baa_08_16_v4__cmo_26feb08.pdf

BAA 08-16

Spin Torque Transfer-Random Access Memory (STT-RAM)

Devanand Shenoy, Ph.D.

Program Manager

DARPA/MTO

3701 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203-1714 Fax: (703) 696-2206

Email: baa08-16@darpa.mil

Table of Contents:

Part I: Overview Information 3 Part II: Full Text of Announcement Sec. I: Funding Opportunity Description 4 Sec. II: Award Information 8 Sec. III: Eligibility Information 8

1. Eligible Applicants

2. Cost Sharing and Matching

Sec. IV. Application and Submission Information 10

1. Address to Request Application Package

2. Content and Form of Application

Submission

3. Submission Dates and Times

4. Funding Restrictions

5. Other Submission Requirements

Sec. V. Application Review Information 17

1. Criteria

2. Review and Selection Process

Sec. VI. Award Administration Information 20

1. Award Notices

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

3. Reporting Requirements

Sec. VII. Agency Contacts 27

Part One: Overview Information

• Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Microsystems Technology Office (MTO)

• Funding Opportunity Title – Spin Torque Transfer-Random Access Memory (STT-RAM)

• Announcement Type – Initial announcement

• Funding Opportunity Number – Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) 08-

• Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – 12.910

Research and Technology Development

• Dates o Proposal Due Date: April 11, 2008 (4:00 PM EST)

• Concise description of the funding opportunity - DARPA is soliciting innovative research and development proposals in the area of Spin-Torque Transfer Random Access Memory technologies. The goal of this program is to develop materials and processes to fully exploit the spin-torque transfer (STT) phenomenon for creating “universal” memory elements.

• Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

• Types of instruments that may be awarded -- Procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement or other transaction.

• Agency contact o Dr. Devanand Shenoy The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at, fax: (703) 696- 2206, electronic mail: baa08-16@darpa.mil.

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: BAA 08-16

3701 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203-1714

FAX (703) 696-2206

PHONE (571) 218-4932

EMAIL devanand.shenoy@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/, and Grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the

BAA.

DARPA is soliciting innovative research and development (R&D) proposals in the area of Spin-Torque Transfer Random Access Memory technologies. The goal of this program is to develop materials and processes to fully exploit the spin-torque transfer (STT) phenomenon for creating “universal” memory elements. A universal memory element is one that exhibits scalability for high capacity of storage per unit volume, as well as high read/write speed, compatibility with CMOS processes, and non-volatility. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

Prior research in micro-magnetics and spintronics has led to the exploitation of giant magnetoresistance (GMR) effects for rotating magnetic disk drive memories, as well as magnetic tunneling junctions (MTJ) for magnetic random access memory (MRAM). The spin-torque transfer (STT) effect is a recent discovery that exploits magnetic spin states to electrically change the magnetic orientation of a material (Science 285, 867 (1999)).

Components based on the STT effect can have the properties of a universal memory, high density, high speed, non-volatility, high endurance, and can also be well suited for harsh environments such as those with exposure to ionizing radiation. In addition, they can operate from a single power supply voltage level greatly simplifying associated circuitry.

This program is aimed at developing the core technology for exploiting spin-torque transfer and related phenomena for producing large-scale memories. Compatibility and stability with expected mainstream processes for semiconductor electronics and patterned media is an important attribute that should enable significant leverage for these new technologies in delivering early demonstrations and in gaining wider acceptance.

Background

Early spintronic devices used magnetic field as the state variable for processing information. Rotating magnetic disk drives and magnetic RAM (MRAM) are commercialized examples of spintronic technologies. Most present day disk drives use GMR read/write heads. GMR has a large signal-to-noise and great sensitivity and has been a real advance in reducing physical size while boosting storage capacities of drives.

On the other hand, MRAMs make use of the magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) as the basic storage element. An MTJ is a sandwich of materials, consisting of two magnetic material layers separated by a thin insulating tunnel barrier layer. An MTJ essentially stores a single bit of information in its state of relative magnetization. One of the magnetic layers, called the reference layer, has its magnetization fixed in one direction, while the second magnetic layer, the storage layer, can have its magnetization polarization state switched either parallel or anti-parallel to the reference layer. The state of the information stored in the MTJ is sensed by driving a current through the MTJ.

Depending on the relative state of magnetization of the MTJ, the overall material stack exhibits a high intrinsic resistance or a low one. If the reference and storage layers are aligned in opposite directions the resistance of the MTJ is very high; it is low otherwise.

The magnetic layers do not require power to retain their field orientations; thus, the state of the MTJ is preserved when power to the device is removed. The state of the MTJ storage layer is controlled by the currents in the bit and word lines. This concept makes for a compact storage cell for MRAM but has a fundamental issue when scaling down the size of the MTJ; higher currents are needed to switch the state of the cell resulting in increasing power dissipation.

Other spintronic devices use currents of spin-aligned electrons (spin-polarized currents) rather than fixed magnetic fields for processing and storing information. Spin-polarized currents can be generated by driving a current through a ferromagnetic layer. If the ferromagnetic electrode has a magnetization aligned in one direction, the magnetic moments of electrons passing through it become aligned in the same direction. It was theoretically predicted that such a spin-polarized current could transfer its angular momentum to a second magnetic layer and therefore switch the magnetization of this second layer into an alignment parallel with the reference layer, provided the dimensions of the device are about 100 nm or less. This new physics phenomenon, known as spin-torque transfer switching, was first demonstrated in metallic thin films at low temperature. It was also shown that, by passing a current through the layers in the opposite direction, the spin-polarized electrons reflected back from the reference layer can have sufficient angular momentum to switch the second layer into an anti-parallel alignment. Along with the low temperature needed for operation, the other major problems with this implementation have been the high current density needed for switching and the small difference in resistance between the two states.

Further research into the STT phenomena has led to new materials and the replacement of metallic films with MTJs. MTJ resistance levels can be adjusted through material selection and MTJs also provide greater difference between the resistance states of the cell. Operation at room temperature has been reported using Aluminum Oxide as the tunneling barrier, and more recent efforts with Magnesium Oxide have shown promise for a reduction in power. Based on innovations in the MTJ, it is quite possible to develop a very compact and scalable memory that exploits spin and avoids the circuit issues surrounding prior art. With the optimal choice of materials, this STT memory would have fast read/write and be non-volatile, low power, and scalable. It would also be uncomplicated to fabricate and could conceivably be done in a silicon foundry if the process and materials were designed for compatibility as well. This BAA seeks innovative research proposals for achieving a STT technology for dense solid-state memories for defense applications.

DARPA is interested in all aspects of this technology. The technical challenges to be addressed in this program include developing the science and technology necessary to fully understand STT effects and the optimal methods of exploitation for memories. This program seeks a combined theoretical and experimental approach, including extension and application of established physics and engineering knowledge for spin-torque transfer and related effects, materials composition and processing, cell creation and organization, testing, and verification.

Program Requirements

DARPA is seeking innovative research proposals for STT-RAM technologies that will lead to the ability to fabricate dense, high performance, cost-effective universal memories. DARPA believes that to achieve this objective, the following technical areas need to be addressed. Proposers are strongly encouraged to address all these areas of interest in a comprehensive proposal. The areas of interest are as follows:

Technical area One - STT Materials and Processes:

Research into optimal materials and processes for creating spin-torque transfer devices, focusing on scalability, performance, reliability, compatibility and stability. Materials and processes that are compatible with the future expectations of silicon CMOS processing are of greatest interest since this program aims to develop dense solid-state memories. Those materials must be stable in order to have long-term reliability and endurance in possibly harsh environments. Reliability and endurance is also a concern with new materials and should be addressed in any offered proposal.

Technical Area Two - STT Architecture, Devices, Circuit Blocks:

Research efforts into innovative devices that exploit STT and exhibit high speed read/write, error-free operation, with very low power dissipation. New architectures for combining STT memories with electronic logic devices is of interest, and offerors should provide initial designs and limitations as appropriate. Monolithic integration technologies for embedding STT memory devices with conventional electronic logic are of high interest.

Technical Area Three - STT Integrated Memory Arrays, Demonstration, Test, Verification:

Scale-up of basic materials devices, and processes into memory arrays, with associated read/write and addressing circuits. Demonstration of error detection and correction methods, as well as accelerated long term testing.

Program Scope

The STT program will consist of two phases. The length of each phase should be decided by the proposer based on the approach and effort needed. The focus of each phase is described below:

Phase I. STT Materials and Processes. In this phase, performers are expected to develop physical models for the STT effect for use in electronics, as well as complete basic materials and bulk processes research. This phase should result in demonstrations of a wafer yield with 40% operational memory bits whose performance parameters are shown in the table below.

Phase II. STT Memory Demonstration. In this phase, the materials, processes, and devices from phase I will be scaled up for implementation in a prototype technology.

This phase is expected to result in fabrication of 1 Mbit memory arrays in processes compatible with other necessary read-out and logic circuitry. The yield expected in this phase is at least 40% operational 1 Mb memory die. The performance expected of such arrays are also shown in the table below.

Program Go/No-Go Goals (Metrics):

The following metrics relate to memory components and are of prime interest in this program. All proposers should consider and address this set at a minimum with their approach. Offerors are encouraged to include additional relevant metrics based on their individual approaches, but these basic parameters should be addressed within the proposal. It is expected that all processing will be performed at the 90 nm node.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Write Energy 0.25 pJ/bit 0.06 pJ/bit

Write/Read Speed 5 ns/bit 5 ns/bit

Cell Size 0.24 sq. µm 0.12 sq. µm

Memory Bit Area 0.02 sq. µm 0.02 sq. µm

Thermal Stability (Δ) 60 80

Endurance (cycles) 1.00E+16 >3.00E+16

Wafer Yield 40% operational memory bits

40% operational 1 MB memory die

The thermal stability metric (Δ) is defined as the magnetic layer anisotropy (Hk) times the saturation magnetization (MS) times the switching current density (Jc) times the resistance area product (RA) divided by the Boltzmann (kB) constant times the temperature in Kelvin.

Tk

RAJMH

B cSk )( =Δ

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 may be opened with that offeror. If the proposed effort is inherently divisible and nothing is gained from the aggregation, offerors should consider submitting it as multiple independent efforts. 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.

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 value to the Government. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement, 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.

Foreign participants and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants 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

Current federal employees are prohibited from participating in particular matters involving conflicting financial, employment, and representational interests (18 USC 203, 205, and 208.). The DARPA Program Manager for this BAA is Dr. Devanand Shenoy.

As of the date of first publication of the BAA, the Government has not identified any potential conflicts of interest involving this program manager. Once the proposals have been received, and prior to the start of proposal evaluations, the Government will assess potential conflicts of interest and will promptly notify the offeror if any appear to exist.

(Please note the Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the offeror’s own duty to give full notice and planned mitigation for all potential organizational conflicts, as discussed below.). The Program Manager is required to review and evaluate all proposals received under this BAA and to manage all selected efforts. Offerors should carefully consider the composition of their performer team before submitting a proposal to this BAA.

All Proposers 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 Proposer 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 Proposer 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 and/or do not have plans to mitigate this conflict will be returned without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

If a prospective Proposer believes that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise), the Proposer should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending Proposer's contact information and a summary of the potential conflict by email to the mailbox address for this BAA at BAA08-16@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. Other Eligibility Criteria

1. Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming arrangements composed of partners from academia, industry, and national laboratories are encouraged and should be explained thoroughly in the full proposal. Integrated teams capable of addressing the different technological and scientific aspects of the STT-RAM program will be highly valued. A website (http://www.davincinetbook.com/teams) has been established to facilitate formation of teaming arrangements between interested parties. Specific content, communications, networking, and team formation are the sole responsibility of the participants. Neither DARPA nor the Department of Defense (DoD) endorses the destination web site or the information and organizations contained therein, nor does DARPA or the DoD exercise any responsibility at the destination. This website is provided consistent with the stated purpose of this BAA.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Address to Request Application Package

This solicitation 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

Proposers are required to submit full proposals at the time and date specified in the BAA in order to be considered during the initial round of selections; however, proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to one year from date of posting on FedBizOpps and Grants.gov. Full proposals submitted after the due date stated in the BAA or due date otherwise specified by DARPA after review of proposal abstracts may be selected contingent on the availability of funds.

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.

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled, for administrative purposes only, by a support contractor. This support contractor is prohibited from competition in DARPA technical research and is bound by appropriate nondisclosure requirements. Proposals and proposed abstracts may not be submitted by fax or e-mail;

any so sent will be disregarded.

Proposals not meeting the format described in the BAA may not be reviewed.

For Proposers Posting to Grants.Gov:

Offerors may elect to use the Grants.gov APPLY function if the applicant is seeking a grant or cooperative agreement. The APPLY function replaces the proposal submission process that other offerors follow. The APPLY function does not affect the proposal content or format. The APPLY function is electronic; offerors do not submit paper proposals in addition to the Grants.gov APPLY electronic submission.

For All proposers:

All administrative correspondence and questions on this solicitation, including requests for information on how to submit a proposal abstract or full proposal to this BAA, should be directed to BAA08-16@darpa.mil. DARPA intends to use electronic mail and fax for correspondence regarding BAA 08-16. Proposals may not be submitted by fax or e-mail;

any so sent will be disregarded. DARPA encourages use of the Internet for retrieving the BAA and any other related information that may subsequently be provided.

For Proposers Submitting proposals through T-FIMS

Proposals sent in response to BAA 08-16 must be submitted through T-FIMS. Attached to this BAA is a document entitled “User’s Guide to T-FIMS: DARPA’s BAA Submission System” (see Attachment 1). A thorough read of this section guarantees successful submission to T-FIMS and explains all the necessary steps to submitting proposals through T-FIMS. Because proposers using T-FIMS may encounter heavy traffic on the web server, and T-FIMS requires a registration and certificate installation for all proposers, proposers should not wait until the day the proposal is due to create an account in T-FIMS and submit the proposal. All proposers using T-FIMS must also encrypt the proposal, as per the instructions below.

For Proposers Submitting to an Electronic Business Application such as the T-FIMS BAA Tool:

All proposals submitted electronically by means of an Electronic Business Application Tool or proposal submission web site (not including Grants.gov) must be encrypted using Winzip or PKZip with 256-bit AES encryption. Only one zipped/encrypted file will be accepted per proposal and proposals not zipped/encrypted will be rejected by DARPA.

An encryption password form must be completed and emailed to BAA08-16@darpa.mil at the time of proposal submission. See https://www.tfims.darpa.mil/baa/ for the encryption password form.

Note the word “PASSWORD” must appear in the subject line of the above email and there are minimum security requirements for establishing the encryption password.

Failure to provide the encryption password may result in the proposal not being evaluated. For further information and instructions on how to zip and encrypt proposal files, see https://www.tfims.darpa.mil/baa/.

2. Full Proposal Format

All full proposals must be in the format given below. Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without review. Proposals shall consist of two volumes. All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, 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 are not included in the page counts given below. The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Except for the attached bibliography and Section I, Volume I shall not exceed {55} number pages. Maximum page lengths for each section are shown in braces { } below. All full proposals must be written in English.

3. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I. Administrative A.{1} Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number

(2) Technical area

(3) Lead Organization Submitting proposal

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

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

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

NONPROFIT”

(5) Contractor’s reference number (if any)

(6) Other team members (if applicable) and type of business for each

(7) Proposal title

(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available)

(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available), total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any) and

(10) Date proposal was submitted.

B. {1}Official transmittal letter.

Section II. Summary of Proposal A. {3} Executive Summary. This should clearly and concisely summarize the following:

• A description of the innovative approaches and technical solutions proposed.

• The quantitative end-of-program performance goals and the milestones associated with each Phase of the development effort. The milestones and performance goals should be listed in a single table (see above for an example table).

• An explanation of how the above goals and milestones compare to what has already been demonstrated.

• Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization.

Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are not proprietary claims, this should be stated.

Section III. Detailed Proposal Information

A. {20} Technical Rationale & Approach. A concise section outlining the scientific and technical challenges, unique approaches, and potential anticipated technical solutions to meet or exceed each program metric. This section should demonstrate that the proposer has a clear understanding of the state-of-the-art; and should provide sufficient technical details so as to permit complete evaluation of the feasibility of the idea. Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort should be included.

B. {8} Program Plan & Cost Schedules. A narrative explaining the explicit timelines, milestone achievements, and quantitative metrics by which progress toward the goals can be evaluated. This plan should include a specific and detailed test plan detailing how performance of milestones, particularly the program metrics, will be measured. Note: Measurable critical milestones should occur at least every 6 months after start of effort. These milestones should enable and support a go/no go decision for the next part of the effort. Milestones must be associated with demonstrable, quantitative measures of performance, and should be summarized in a single table. Additional interim non-critical management milestones are also highly encouraged at regular intervals. This section should also include estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the primes and major subcontractors, total cost, and any company cost share.

Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each. The proposed period of performance of the overall program and specifically of each program phase and demonstration should be clearly stated. This section should also identify major technical risk elements specific to the proposed approach, estimate the risk magnitude for each such element, and describe specific plans to mitigate risk.

C. {2} Teaming & Management Plan. A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task of responsibilities of team members; and (4) the teaming strategy among the team members.

D. {5} Capabilities. A section describing relevant prior work, the background, qualifications and relevant experience of key individuals to be assigned to the program and the facilities and equipment to be utilized. Please do not attach supporting material (CDs, movies, etc.) to the proposal, except as noted in Section IV below.

E. {5} Slide Summary. PowerPoint-type slides (i.e., landscape formatted for presentation) that succinctly highlight the major aspects of the proposal, including proposer-defined measurable metrics, in a manner suitable for presentation to DARPA management.

F. {5} Technology Transition & Business Plan. A discussion outlining how the technology to be developed in this program will be commercialized and made available to DoD contractors. See also “Intellectual Property.”

G. {5} Statement of Work (SOW). A document written in plain English, outlining the scope of the effort (by Phase) and citing specific tasks to be performed, contractor requirements, and data and/or material deliverables. For each task/subtask, provide:

• A general description of the objective (for each defined task/activity);

• A detailed description of the approach to be taken to accomplish each defined task/activity);

• Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution (prime, sub, team member, by name, etc.);

• The exit criteria for each task/activity - a product, event or milestone that defines its completion.

• Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities.

Note: It is recommended that the SOW should be developed so that each Phase of the program is separately defined. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

Section IV. Additional Information A. A brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based may be provided. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included in the submission. This Section does not count towards the overall page limit for Volume I.

4. Volume II, Cost Proposal – {No Page Limit}

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number;

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization Submitting proposal;

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

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

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

NONPROFIT”;

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

(6) Other team members (if applicable) and type of business for each;

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available);

(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), and electronic mail (if available);

(10) Award instrument requested: cost-plus-fixed-free (CPFF), cost-contract—no fee, cost sharing contract – no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction;

(11) Place(s) and period(s) of performance;

(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s) (if any);

(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the offeror’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

(14) Name, address, and telephone number of the offeror’s cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

(15) Date proposal was prepared;

(16) DUNS number;

(17) TIN number; and

(18) Cage Code;

(19) Subcontractor Information; and

(20) Proposal validity period.

Detailed cost breakdown to include: (1) total program cost broken down by major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs, overhead charges, etc.) and further broken down task and phase; (2) major program tasks by year; (3) an itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases; (4) an itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase1; (5) a summary of projected

• 1 IT is defined as “any equipment, or interconnected system(s) or subsystem(s) of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the agency. (a) For purposes of this definition, equipment is used by an agency if the equipment is used by the agency directly or is used by a contractor under a contract with the agency which – (1) Requires the use of such equipment; or (2) Requires the use, to a significant extent, or such equipment in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product. (b) The term “information technology” includes computers, ancillary, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources. (c) The term “information technology” does not include – (1) Any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract; or (2) Any equipment that contains imbedded information technology that is used as an integral part of the product, but the principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. For example, HVAC funding requirements by month; and (6) the source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing; and (7) identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Expert/s, etc.).

The prime contractor is responsible for compiling and providing all subcontractor proposals for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Subcontractor proposals should include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements.

Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each. NOTE: for IT and equipment purchases, include a letter stating why the offeror cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding.

Supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates in B. above. Include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation. Note: “cost or pricing data” as defined in FAR Subpart 15.4 shall be required if the offeror is seeking a procurement contract award of $650,000 or greater unless the offeror request an exception from the requirement to submit cost of pricing data. “Cost or pricing data” are not required if the offeror proposes an award instrument other than a procurement contract (e.g., a grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction.) All proprietary subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime, of which cannot be uploaded to TFIMS shall be made immediately available to the Government, upon request, under separate cover (i.e., mail, electronic/email, etc.), either by the Proposer or by the subcontractor organization.

All proposers requesting an 845 Other Transaction Agreement for Prototypes (OTA) must include a detailed list of payment milestones. Each such payment milestone must include the following: milestone description, exit criteria, due date, milestone payment amount (to include, if cost share is proposed, contractor and government share amounts).

It is noted that, at a minimum, such payable milestones should relate directly to accomplishment of program technical go/no-go criteria as defined in the BAA and/or the offeror’s proposal. Agreement type, fixed price or expenditure based, will be subject to negotiation by the Agreements Officer; however, it is noted that the Government prefers use of fixed price payable milestones to the maximum extent possible. If the proposer requests award of an 845 OTA as a nontraditional defense contractor, as so defined in the OSD guide entitled “Other Transactions (OT) Guide For Prototype Projects” dtd January 2001 (as amended)(http://www.dau.mil/pubs/Online_Pubs.asp), information must be included in the cost proposal to support the claim. Additionally, if the proposer plans requests award of an 845 OTA, without the required one-third (1/3) cost share, information must be included in the cost proposal supporting that there is at least one non-traditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent in the proposed prototype project.

(heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as thermostats or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where information technology is integral to its operation, are not information technology.”

C. Submission Dates and Times

1. Full Proposal Date

The full proposal (original and designated number of hard and electronic copies) must be submitted to DARPA/MTO, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1714 (Attn.: BAA 08-16) on or before 4:00 p.m., local time, April 11, 2008 in order to be considered during the initial round of selections; however, proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to one year from date of posting on FedBizOpps. Full proposals submitted after the due date specified in the BAA or due date otherwise specified by DARPA after review of proposal abstracts may be selected contingent upon the availability of funds.

The full proposal (original and two (2) hard and electronic copies) must be submitted in time to reach DARPA by April 11, 2008 (initial closing), in order to be considered during the initial evaluation phase; however, BAA 08-16 will remain open until 4:00 PM EST February 25, 2009). Proposals may be submitted at any time from issuance of this announcement through 4:00 PM EST February 25, 2009; however, offerors are warned that the likelihood of funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the initial closing date deadline.

DARPA will acknowledge receipt of complete submissions via email and assign control numbers that should be used in all further correspondence regarding proposals.

Failure to comply with the submission procedures may result in the submission not being evaluated.

D. Intergovernmental Review (if applicable)

Not Applicable

E. Funding Restrictions

Not Applicable

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

A. Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation of proposals will be accomplished through a scientific/technical review of each proposal using the following criteria, in order of descending importance: (a) Ability to meet Program Go/No-Go Metrics; (b) Overall Scientific and Technical Merit;

(c) Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission; (d) Realism of Proposed Schedule; (e) Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience; (f) Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition; and (g) Cost Realism. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. DARPA’s intent is to review proposals as soon as possible after they arrive; however, proposals may be reviewed periodically for administrative reasons. The following are descriptions of the above listed criteria:

(a) Ability to meet program Go/No-Go Goals The feasibility and likelihood of the proposed approach for satisfying the program go/no-go metrics are explicitly described and clearly substantiated. The proposal reflects a mature and quantitative understanding of the performance go/no-go metrics, the statistical confidence with which they may be measured, and their relationship to the concept of operations that will result from successful performance in the program. The proposed technical approach is feasible, achievable, complete and supported by a

(b) Overall Scientific and Technical Merit The proposed technical approach is feasible, achievable, complete and supported by a proposed technical team that has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final product that achieves the goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal identifies major technical risks and planned mitigation efforts are clearly defined and feasible. The proposal clearly explains the technical approaches that will be employed to meet or exceed each program metric listed in Section IV.B. Detailed Technical Proposal, page 15.

and provides ample justification as to why the approaches are feasible.

(c) Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission The potential contributions of the proposed effort with relevance to the national technology base will be evaluated. Specifically, DARPA’s mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military use.

(d) Realism of Proposed Schedule The proposer’s abilities to aggressively pursue performance metrics in the shortest timeframe and to accurately account for that timeframe will be evaluated, as well as proposer’s ability to understand, identify, and mitigate any potential risk in schedule.

(e) Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience The proposer's prior experience in similar efforts must clearly demonstrate an ability to deliver products that meet the proposed technical performance within the proposed budget and schedule. The proposed team has the expertise to manage the cost and schedule. Similar efforts completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area are fully described including identification of other Government sponsors.

(f) Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition The capability to transition the technology to the research, industrial, and operational military communities in such a way as to enhance U.S. defense, to the extent to which intellectual property rights limitations creates or may create a barrier to technology transition.

(g) Cost Realism The objective of this criterion is to establish that the proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach offered, as well as to determine the proposer’s practical understanding of the effort. This will be principally measured by cost per labor-hour and number of labor-hours proposed. The evaluation criterion recognize that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to offer low-risk ideas with minimum uncertainty and to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more competitive posture. DARPA discourages such cost strategies. Cost reduction approaches that will be received favorably include innovative management concepts that maximize direct funding for technology and limit diversion of funds into overhead.

After selection and before award the contracting officer will negotiate cost/price reasonableness.

Award(s) will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered, including the potential contributions of the proposed work to the overall research program and the availability of funding for the effort. Award(s) may be made to any proposer(s) whose proposal(s) is determined selectable regardless of its overall rating.

NOTE: PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE

LOWERED AND/OR PROPOSALS REJECTED IF SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

ARE NOT FOLLOWED.

B. Review and Selection Process

It is the policy of DARPA to ensure impartial, equitable, comprehensive proposal evaluations and to select the source (or sources) whose offer meets the Government's technical, policy, and programmatic goals. Pursuant to FAR 35.016, the primary basis for selecting proposals for acceptance shall be technical, importance to agency programs, and fund availability. In order to provide the desired evaluation, qualified Government personnel will conduct reviews and (if necessary) convene panels of experts in the appropriate areas.

Proposals will not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. DARPA's intent is to review proposals as soon as possible after they arrive; however, proposals may be reviewed periodically for administrative reasons. For evaluation purposes, a proposal is the document described in “Proposal Information”, Section IV.B.. Other supporting or background materials submitted with the proposal will be considered for the reviewer's convenience only and not considered as part of the proposal.

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes by support contractors. These support contractors are prohibited from competition in DARPA technical research and are bound by appropriate non-disclosure requirements.

Subject to the restrictions set forth in FAR 37.203(d), input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by DARPA from non-Government consultants /experts who are strictly bound by the appropriate non-disclosure requirements.

It is the policy of DARPA to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. No proposals will be returned.

Upon completion of the source selection process, the original of each proposal received will be retained at DARPA and all other copies will be destroyed.

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Award Notices

As soon as the evaluation of a proposal is complete, the offeror will be notified that 1) the proposal has been selected for funding pending contract negotiations, or 2) the proposal has not been selected. These official notifications will be sent via U. S. mail and electronic mail to the Technical POC identified on the proposal coversheet.

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Security

The Government anticipates that proposals submitted under this BAA will be unclassified. In the event that a proposer chooses to submit a classified proposal or submit any documentation that may be classified, the following information is applicable.

Security classification guidance on a DD Form 254 will not be provided at this time since DARPA is soliciting ideas only. After reviewing the incoming proposals, if a determination is made that the award instrument may result in access to classified information, a DD Form 254 will be issued and attached as part of the award. Proposers choosing to submit a classified proposal must first receive permission from the Original Classification Authority to use their information in replying to this BAA. Applicable classification guide(s) should be submitted to ensure that the proposal is protected appropriately.

Classified submissions shall be in accordance with the following guidance:

Collateral Classified Information: Use classification and marking guidance provided by previously issued security classification guides, the Information Security Regulation (DoD 5200.1-R), and the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) when marking and transmitting information previously classified by another original classification authority. Classified information at the Confidential and Secret level may only be mailed via U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Registered Mail or U.S. Postal Service Express Mail.