DARPA-BAA-11-54.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Open Manufacturing

DSO

DARPA-BAA-11-54

MAY 5, 2011

Table of Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description II. Award Information III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants B. Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and

Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching D. Other Eligibility Criteria

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

Security and Proprietary Issues C. Full Proposal Submission Information

1. Submission Instructions

2. Full Proposal Format

3. Submission Dates and Times

4. Intergovernmental Review

5. Funding Restrictions

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review and Selection Process

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Selection Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. Human Use

3. Animal Use

4. Publication Approval

5. Export Control

6. Subcontracting

7. Electronic and Information Technology

8. Employment Eligibility Verification

9. Central Contractor Registration and Universal Identifier Requirements

10. Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

11. Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Representations and Certifications

2. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

3. i-Edison

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

VIII. OTHER INFORMATION

A. Intellectual Property Procurement Contract Proposers

1. Noncommercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)

2. Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)

B. Non-Procurement Contract Proposers – Noncommercial and Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)

C. All Proposers – Patents D. All Proposers – Intellectual Property Representations

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Part I: Overview Information

• Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office

• Funding Opportunity Title – Open Manufacturing

• Announcement Type –Initial Announcement

• Funding Opportunity Number – Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

DARPA-BAA-11-54

• Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – 12.910 Research and Technology Development

• Dates o Posting Date: May 5, 2011 o Full Proposals are due by 4:00 PM ET, June 23, 2011.

o Closing Date, 4:00 PM ET, June 23, 2011.

• Description of the Funding Opportunity – The vision of the Open Manufacturing program is to reduce barriers to manufacturing innovation, speed, and affordability of materials, components, and structures. This will be achieved by 1) investing in technologies to enable affordable, rapid, adaptable, energy-efficient manufacturing and fabrication processes, 2) promoting comprehensive manufacturing design, simulation and performance prediction tools, and 3) facilitating exposure to best practices. Specifically, the program will seek development and demonstration of technologies that reduce impediments to the efficient manufacturing of affordable, competitive products that rapidly enter into service at low fiscal and environmental costs.

• Anticipated Individual Awards – Multiple Awards are Anticipated

• Types of Instruments that may be Awarded – Procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction.

• Any Cost Sharing Requirements – cost sharing is desirable but not required.

• Agency Contacts

The BAA Technical POC is Dr. Leo Christodoulou, who can be reached at:

DARPA-BAA-11-54@darpa.mil

The BAA Administrator for this effort can be reached at:

E-mail: DARPA-BAA-11-54@darpa.mil

DARPA/DSO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA-11-54

3701 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203-1714

Solicitations can be viewed at:

Web: http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Solicitations/DSO_Solicitations.aspx mailto:DARPA-BAA-11-42@darpa.mil http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Solicitations/DSO_Solicitations.aspx

Part II: 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.fbo.gov/, and Grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the

BAA.

1 Introduction

Developing and manufacturing of low-volume, high-value systems is both expensive and time consuming. Many high-profile defense systems have suffered from extensive delays and cost escalation during testing and early production due to difficulties incurred in the course of manufacturing key components and subassemblies. Moreover – despite large investments in and extensive testing of components – many military platforms have encountered unanticipated problems, even when they are deployed as-designed. Often these unanticipated problems are caused by not having a full understanding of the range of the coupled material/component/ subassembly interactions, behaviors and properties of the manufactured articles. In turn, this leads to uncertainty in how the part will actually perform during service or use.

Regardless of whether the product is an electro-mechanical system, a structural component, or a subassembly, the greatest sources of outcome uncertainty are:

(a) material and manufacturing variability; (b) manufacturing cost; (c) manufacturing lead times; and (d) component performance range (i.e., whether a component will actually perform as expected). This uncertainty increases risk and drives the cycle of prototype-testing/low-rate production-testing/production-testing that often leads to costly re-designs and delays. Ultimately, this risk raises barriers to innovation and the introduction of new technologies as programs rely on proven (legacy) manufacturing technology and practices.

The Open Manufacturing (OM) program seeks to reduce barriers to manufacturing innovation, speed, affordability and predictability of materials, components and subassembly structures in regards to their properties, manufacturability, cost, and schedule. OM plans to invest in: (a) technologies to enable affordable, rapid, adaptable, easily qualifiable, and efficient manufacturing and fabrication processes;

(b) comprehensive manufacturing design, selection, simulation, and performance prediction tools; (c) technologies to reduce impediments to accelerated qualification for intended use by establishing capabilities to rapidly and inexpensively characterize, analyze, model, test, and simulate non-linear and/or coupled performance, with guaranteed performance across process variations, environmental conditions, and during service or use; (d) (multi-user) facilities for developing, demonstrating, testing, and hosting new manufacturing processes and process models that offer potential manufacturers access and choices of process selection and “try-before-you-buy” options, http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ thereby reducing entry costs and timelines; (e) mechanisms for easy access and exposure to new processes and best practices through open architecture, collaborative (but not necessarily open source) activities structured to protect intellectual property; and

(f) training of the U.S. manufacturing workforce on new processes by providing enhanced training programs and opportunities. Specifically, the program will seek development and demonstration of technologies that reduce impediments to the efficient manufacturing of affordable, competitive products in several specific product/manufacturing domains so that they can be rapidly introduced into service at low fiscal and environmental costs.

DARPA seeks to impact this problem in two key ways: (a) develop the technological elements necessary for the reliable production and use of a given product; and

(b) demonstrate that it is possible to reduce time-to-product and provide the expected lifetime/capability/readiness knowledge base to enable qualification for intended use in specific examples. For example, near-net metallic components, composite structures and subassemblies (could include trimming, drilling and other finishing operations), and roll-to-roll processing. There are many other examples not listed here that could demonstrate the effectiveness in the OM approach.

2 Task Elements of the Open Manufacturing Program

Subject to availability of funds and quality of proposals received, DARPA plans to invest in the following Task Elements of the Open Manufacturing Program:

1. Design for Manufacturability Analysis, Synthesis and Manufacturing Process Selection Tools

2. Rapid Manufacturing Processes, Process Controls, Process Models and Simulations

3. Rapid Qualification Approaches (these could be applicable to both new and/or legacy manufacturing approaches)

4. Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities (MDFs)

DARPA’s Open Manufacturing program seeks proposals to address any or all of these Task Elements. Proposers are not required to respond to all Task Elements, but must clearly indicate which Task Element(s) are being addressed and how the respective objectives of that element as described below will be met. It is critical that proposers specify appropriate quantitative interim and final milestones for each Task Element proposed.

OM is an integrated effort. Therefore, proposers are encouraged to describe how their proposed activity would seamlessly interface with the other technological areas described above. For example, if a proposer decided to only address Task Element 1 (Design for Manufacturability Analysis, Synthesis and Manufacturing Process Selection Tools) then the proposal should outline how the proposed design tools will be integrated in to either existing tools sets or how they would be integrated in to the other Task Elements. It is anticipated that DARPA will act as the “system integrator” of all Task Elements and will hold frequent program reviews of all performers and associated users to facilitate the dissemination of the various technologies under development. The business arrangements and coordination of potential industry partners will require careful arrangements with DARPA to assure appropriate incentive/reward structure for all manufacturing entities (U.S. Government, small- and large industry, and academia).

3 Task Element Descriptions

3.1 Design for Manufacturability Analysis, Synthesis and Manufacturing Process Selection Tools

Current design tools provide the capability to analyze the expected performance of manufactured systems, typically through slow (non-interactive) simulations of performance in specific environments and often at a fixed level of detail. Typically, only performance is predicted during the early phases of design, with evaluation of manufacturability/cost/schedule over the range of the possible manufacturing options.

Likely variability in product attributes (to include environmental and aging effects) is generally left to later analysis, experience and testing, which can lead to infeasible manufacturing designs that, if carried forward, waste time and resources, and, in the worst case, lead to costly redesigns.

The goal of this Task Element is to establish tools that: (a) account for and select between manufacturing options and likely outcomes in terms of producibility, quality, cost and probabilistic predictions of short-and long-term performance; and (b) can be exercised and inform the design process at the earliest possible time.

Proposers to the Manufacturability Analysis, Synthesis and Manufacturing Tools Task Element should address the following objectives:

• Establish interactive modeling and simulation tools that capture the impact of the manufacturing processes and their limitations to probabilistically predict product behavior including non-linear multi-physics (e.g., thermal, electrical, and mechanical) interactions.

• Establish tools that enable designers to select the most appropriate manufacturing methodology between multiple processes, subject to specified constraints (e.g., cost, schedule, reliability) at the earliest possible stage in the design stage.

• Demonstrate and validate the tool(s) in exemplar “Challenge Problems.”

• Demonstrate a reduction in time from inception to product by at least a factor of five below legacy practice for a range of product forms with varying complexity within a given domain (e.g., composite assemblies, net shape parts and foils/appliqués).

3.2 Rapid Manufacturing Processes, Process Controls, Process Models and Simulations

The capability to produce components in small lot sizes and with short turn-around times is enormously valuable to any manufacturing enterprise – commercial or military. The benefit is even greater for replacement components for legacy systems or limited-production new-make systems. Whereas flexible assembly is already being practiced in the auto industries (current plants are capable of producing multiple models on a single assembly line, with very short changeover between models), the challenge now is developing processes for the manufacture of components with the flexibility and efficiencies that match this capability for Department of Defense applications.

This Task Element is focused on development and demonstration of innovative, rapid manufacturing processes and methods to produce high-value, high-margin components in small lot sizes quickly and with unit costs that are competitive with large lot production.

The majority of systems, from airborne to space platforms (manned and unmanned), can be decomposed into cononical structural components, e.g., metallic components, composite material components and sub-assemblies, and flexible foils and appliqués.

Therefore, a priority for this Task Element is on processes and tools that can be rapidly tailored or reconfigured to produce several different components and/or meet different quality specifications, measurements and constraints to maximize the impact on multiple platforms and applications. These capabilities also help improve return on capital and enhance exploration of a spectrum of market sectors. Processes of specific interest for initial demonstration include, but are not limited to, manufacturing of prototypical composite assemblies, net shape titanium and other metal parts, optical assemblies and roll-to-roll processing of flexible foils and appliqués.

Proposers to the Rapid Manufacturing Processes, Process Controls, Process Models, and Simulations Task Element should address the following Task Element Objectives:

a) Develop manufacturing/fabrication processes and capabilities that enable rapid, low-volume, low-cost production runs of components with performance equivalent to, or better than state-of-the-art manufacturing processes. Novel manufacturing/fabrication approaches (e.g., low temperature synthesis of components, and manufacture of objects by parallel macro-scale mobile fabricators smaller than the objects being built) are encouraged, as are austere manufacturing processes and toolsets to enable fabrication of parts using readily available input materials of variable quality that allow fabrication of replacement or surrogate parts.

b) Demonstrate predictable product attributes on a probabilistic basis.

c) Develop and/or demonstrate intelligent manufacturing sensors, in-situ monitoring for real-time process control, and models to achieve high-rate, high-yield manufacture and high confidence in product attributes that are traceable and can be exploited in Rapid Qualification Approaches (see Task Element 3).

d) Demonstrate the capability to uniquely identify and describe every manufactured component based on its specific manufacturing process variables and signature (derived from control settings, process models, in-situ-sensors, or other means).

e) Demonstrate capability to accelerate manufacturing of qualifiable articles in specific domains in comparison to conventional technology. Processes of specific interest for initial demonstration include but are not limited to composite assemblies, net shape titanium and other metal parts, and roll-to-roll processing of flexible foils.

f) Develop and validate process models for new or existing manufacturing, and demonstrate compatibility with design codes.

g) Develop supporting adaptive design tools that permit material and process substitution for rapid part fabrication in a changing supply chain environment.

h) Demonstrate that the coupled process models and design tools predict component performance, with sufficient probabilistic fidelity across process variations to enable optimum manufacturing process selection.

3.3 Rapid Qualification Approaches

The process of validating and qualifying new materials, processes and manufacturing technologies has been developed and matured over the years and, today, is capable of introducing new technology in a low-risk manner. However, such methodical, test-intensive methods are cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, and they inhibit the rapid introduction of new and improved processes. An example of this can be found in how aircraft are currently designed/qualified. The building block method extends from coupons (tens of thousands), elements (hundreds), subcomponents (dozens), components (dozens) and full-scale article static and fatigue tests (handful). Once completed, introducing newer and innovative processes for major structural members, such as bulkheads and wing skins, becomes onerous due to the prohibitive cost- and schedule impacts of repeating the relevant building block test series and stifles competition among potential suppliers.

The goal of this Task Element is to develop and demonstrate novel methods to reduce the barriers (cost, schedule, and technical risk) to qualifying/validating new processes, while at the same time quantifying the level of risk. The novel methods can include both analysis and simulation techniques and experimental validation tests, as long as the end method meets the objective to reduce time and costs. The new methods must be capable of determining and accurately stating the “probability of failure” of the components made by the new process to enable decision makers to measure the risk of incorporating the new technology. This means that the capability of the structures manufactured at the extremes of the manufacturing environment (the “corners of the process envelope”) must be accurately accounted for. Hence, understanding the process capability and the effect of low probability events on the performance of the end product must be captured and understood. Traditionally, analytical techniques have done a poor job of capturing the “as-manufactured state, process variability and its ramifications” on new materials/processes/manufacturing technologies and improvement and novel solutions are needed in this area.

Specifically, this Task Element focuses on developing methods to qualify a component made by new, different or previously unqualified materials or processes in less than 50 percent of the time required by current, traditional methods (build and break) – and at less than 50 percent of the cost using current, traditional methods (build and break) as a benchmark. The methods will be required to incorporate the component key quality characteristics and relate to their manufacturing processes described in Task Element 2 (Rapid Manufacturing Processes, Process Controls, Process Models and Simulations).

For example, the methods will also need to account for variations in microstructure induced by the different processes including any pertinent spatial microstructural variations and properties that may arise as a result of non-uniform time/temperature profile within a given part or component. Early characterization to discover defects and their root cause in order to eliminate them will be essential. A strategy for introducing these components, without being encumbered by traditional qualification issues, will be an important part of the implementation plan of any product thus produced.

Proposers to the Rapid Qualification Approaches Task Element should address the following objectives:

a) Develop and demonstrate processes for accelerated qualification for intended use by establishing capabilities to rapidly and inexpensively characterize, analyze, model, test, and simulate non-linear and/or coupled performance, with guaranteed performance across process variations, environmental conditions, and during service use.

b) Identify experiments and targeted tests that rapidly optimize part qualification processes.

c) Establish models that incorporate uncertainty, and develop ways to make models work together – with uncertainty embedded in each stage – that predict and assure that the range of performance lies within required confidence limits. Use these models to generate new testing protocols that compress test time and reduce cost.

d) Validate these methods in specific cases to insert new materials/processes/manufacturing technology in 50 percent of the time and at 50 percent of the cost of traditional approaches, while quantifying the risk.

Proposers of Tasks Elements 1-3 are encouraged, but are not required, to work with MDFs (see Task 4 below). Proposers should establish mechanisms for interfacing with existing or future MDFs so that their best practices are shared in an open architecture and potentially lead to access to new customers and opportunities. It is anticipated that, ultimately, technology knowledge or processes developed under the OM program will reside in one or more of the MDFs (with full protection of intellectual property) so that others may use them, subject to appropriate business arrangements between the intellectual property holder and the potential user and facilitated by the MDF administrator (“trusted broker” model).

Although the use of an MDF is not required for submitting a response to this solicitation, its use in collaborative efforts should be carefully considered. Collaborations including an MDF will offer significant advantages for establishing an Open Manufacturing infrastructure that reduces financial barriers to innovation, speed and affordability.

Proposers can identify one or more MDF(s) with which they intend to collaborate , and indicate the scope, extent and business arrangement they intend to establish. A proposal that is integrally tied to either an existing or proposed MDF should clearly spell out that planned relationship, and any associated costs regarding the MDF must be made part of the cost of the proposal. The Government may choose to directly and separately fund such activities.

3.4 Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities (MDFs)

The Open Manufacturing program will establish geographically distributed Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities (MDFs) to promote development and deployment of advanced and innovative cost-effective, energy-efficient materials and manufacturing technologies to meet defense and commercial needs.

A limited number of these MDFs may be located at government facilities (FFRDCs and government laboratories), where the necessary capital equipment and supporting infrastructure (e.g., security, to include mechanisms to protect IP rights) are already in place. However, other entities, institutions and organizations are encouraged to submit proposals to establish such capabilities that represent good value to the Government.

This program will not build buildings, buy land or facilities, or commercial off-the-shelf equipment.

The MDFs should provide interested users and, specifically, Open Manufacturing performers immediate access to unique research capabilities and a range of facilities on a timely and an affordable basis. The use of MDFs will include arrangements that provide IP and other know-how protection and, where applicable, rules and procedures suitable for conducting International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)-controlled or classified research and development. This reduces the risk of inappropriate capital investment, obviates lead times for capital equipment purchase and delivery, and accelerates manufacturing trials.

MDFs proposers should indicate how, once the MDFs are established, Open Manufacturing program participants and other manufacturing process development entities will be given access to these facilities. The intent of the MDF is to facilitate in the development, integration, evaluation and exploitation of efficient/rapid/flexible manufacturing technologies. It is anticipated that users outside the Open Manufacturing program (e.g., manufacturing tool developers, and others) also will be provided access to the MDFs to allow broad rapid dissemination of technologies development under this program as well as the transition of new technologies (including those not supported under the Open Manufacturing program) into the MDFs.

The MDFs should endeavor to either physically or virtually have access to all relevant manufacturing technologies within their sphere of expertise, including fabrication design tools, processing tools, test and evaluation equipment, and the necessary expertise to maintain these assets. The MDFs should be staffed with, or have access to designers and manufacturing engineers/experts, product testers/evaluators and analytical capabilities to guide users in the design and development of new manufacturing processes, maintain the infrastructure, and provide hands-on training. The MDFs should have the capability to run (physically and virtually) various processing scenarios to determine the optimal set of tools for a variety of production runs, and to provide the user with performance/schedule/cost analysis on each of the different potential manufacturing pathways. It is understood that the cost of certain manufacturing tools can be prohibitive, especially if the utilization rate is low. In such cases, the MDF will need to make arrangements with outside vendors to have access to these tools on a toll or other service basis.

The MDFs must be structured to allow for the open exchange of manufacturing information, such as design tools, processing tools, qualification and certification approaches and fabrication costing methods. A structure must be in place to allow for the protection of IP yet enable the sharing of pre-competitive best practices. It is anticipated that the MDFs will act as “trusted brokers” to maintain confidentiality of the IP and special know-how, and, if needed, assist in the negotiating of IP rights to other participants in the MDF.

Proposers to the Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities Task Element must address how they would respond to the following objectives:

• Act as impartial centers of expertise with physical (possibly geographically distributed) and intellectual capital in a given domain (e.g., composite assembly manufacture, net shape titanium and other net part manufacture, and flexible materials and appliqués) to be engaged by OM participants and others on a case-by-case basis.

• Provide capability for handling open, proprietary, and possibly classified activities.

• Facilitate OM participants in development, testing, demonstration, and qualification of new manufacturing/fabrication technologies, e.g., rapid fabrication; flexible processing; austere manufacturing; distributed fabrication; in-situ process monitoring; and low-temperature fabrication.

• House and maintain models/capabilities profiles of newly developed and commercial/existing processes as well as house and maintain a manufacturing database.

• Assist in the selection, optimization, and modeling of potential products.

• Assist in the development of testing protocols and standards across all stages of manufacturing.

• Provide qualification data package (cGMP; ISO9000-like) for any hosted manufacturing processes or models.

• Assist and expand the base of manufacturing process designers by providing access to the centers’ real and virtual capabilities (foundry model), thus providing opportunities to develop products and reduce barriers to entry.

• Establish formal and ad hoc networks that post non-proprietary capabilities, schedules and availability for services and products.

• Allow potential product developer/user to compare and select from a “marketplace” of manufacturing processes.

• Enhance OM participants’ return on investment by providing the opportunity for retention of IP access to multiple potential customers, access to complementary technology (subject to appropriate fee), and best practices while protecting the IP of all involved.

• Establish processes for compensating IP holders (process developers and model builders) for use of their technologies by other users/evaluators.

• Facilitate manufacturing design and manufacturing training.

• Encourage Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) activities.

Proposers to the MDF Task should specify one or more areas of emphasis (e.g., net shape metal fabrication; polymer, ceramic and metallic composite manufacture; and foils and appliqués manufacture), and must provide the capabilities and processes that make them unique relative to that area of emphasis. These should include, for example:

a) Specific description of design databases and tools, processing equipment, test/evaluation capabilities and cost analysis to be available either at the MDF or through pre-arranged agreements with model-owners and manufacturers regarding relevant IP-, technology-, and processes.

b) Description of the existing design and manufacturing tools that are in-place at the proposer’s facility or distributed facilities.

c) Key personnel and capabilities at the MDF to assist in the running of design tools, fabrication processes analysis and testing of manufactured components

d) Demonstrated competence in “design for manufacturability” methodology and supporting design tool infrastructure to allow users to run various manufacturing scenarios to determine the attributes between different processing routes both existing and new.

e) A description of how the MDF will disseminate new manufacturing technologies developed under the Open Manufacturing program. This includes new design tools, fabrication methods, and rapid qualification methods.

f) Operational procedures for how users (both participants in the Open Manufacturing program and outside users) engage with the MDF. The MDF should be available to the manufacturing community at large as a service. This includes small and large business, government, and university researchers.

g) How the MDF will provide hands-on training on all of its resources and how it will provide the manufacturing community with trained workers in specific areas of design, advanced fabrication techniques, qualification, and testing.

h) How knowledge is captured and made available to users, and how best practices are captured and disseminated to the user community.

i) The MDF staff must have a thorough understanding of the manufacturing base in the U.S. and abroad, to include understanding of capabilities, and cost analysis.

j) Methods and mechanisms for the protection of all IP rights.

k) Methods and mechanisms for providing access to IP to users (both in the Open

Manufacturing program and outside the program).

l) Plan for sustaining the MDF after the Open Manufacturing program is completed

(approximately 48 months).

It is highly desirable that the proposed MDF have a majority of the necessary capital equipment and manufacturing infrastructure already in place. Timing is important, and the sooner the MDFs can be established the sooner the Open Manufacturing participants can begin evaluating their technologies against current practices. Funding for this task is limited, and leveraging of the Open Manufacturing funds against existing infrastructure or cost-sharing by industry, Federal-, State-, or Local Government is advantageous.

Special equipment that does not exist but must be developed and can be shown to enable revolutionary manufacturing capability will be considered for inclusion under this effort.

Funding for the MDFs will be provided directly by the U.S. Government to the MDF involved with the proposals selected under this solicitation using a “task order” model.

Proposers must identify tasks, schedules and costs associated with the MDF so that the proper level of government funding can be allocated to the MDF to support the proposed work at that facility. Close coordination between the MDF during the planning and performance of the proposed effort will be essential for timely and successful completion of task milestones that ensures receipt of progress funding.

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 proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award.

In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work at the end of one or more of the phases.

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers 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. The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications. The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information.

As of the date of publication of this BAA, DARPA expects that program goals for this BAA may be met by proposers intending to perform 'fundamental research,' i.e., basic or applied research performed on campus in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, DARPA is not prohibited from considering and selecting research proposals that, while perhaps not qualifying as 'fundamental research' under the foregoing definition, still meet the BAA criteria for submissions. If proposals are selected for award that offer other than a fundamental research solution, then DARPA will either work with the proposer to modify the proposed statement of work to bring the research back into line with fundamental research or else the proposer will agree to restrictions in order to receive an award. See Section VI.B.4 for further information on fundamental, non-fundamental and restricted research.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. 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.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government entities (Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they address the following conditions. FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector AND must also provide a letter on letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to government solicitations and compete with industry, and compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement and terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be prime or subcontractors. Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority (as well as, where relevant, contractual authority) establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations.

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

B. 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. Leo Christodoulou.

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 Proposer if any appear to exist. (Please note, the Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the Proposer’s own duty to give full notice and planned mitigation for all potential organizational conflicts, as discussed below.)

Without prior approval or a waiver from the DARPA Director, in accordance with FAR 9.503, a Contractor cannot simultaneously provide scientific, engineering, technical assistance (SETA) or similar support and also be a technical performer. Therefore, all Proposers as well as proposed subcontractors and consultants must affirm whether they (their organizations and individual team members) are providing 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, subcontractor, consultant, or individual supports and identify the prime contract number(s). 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 must include a description of the action the Proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. If in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, a proposal fails to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest and/or any identified conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal will be rejected 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) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the Proposer should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict to the BAA mailbox before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan.

C. 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.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged.

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

Security and Proprietary Issues

NOTE: If proposals are classified, the proposals must indicate the classification level of not only the proposal itself, but also the anticipated award document classification level.

The Government anticipates proposals submitted under this BAA will be unclassified.

However, if a proposal is submitted as “Classified National Security Information” as defined by Executive Order 13526 then the information must be marked and protected as though classified at the appropriate classification level and then submitted to DARPA for a final classification determination.

Security classification guidance via a DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” 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 from other classified sources must first receive permission from the respective Original Classification Authority in order to use their information in replying to this BAA. Applicable classification guide(s) should also be submitted to ensure the proposal is protected at the appropriate classification level.

Classified submissions shall be appropriately and conspicuously marked with the proposed classification level and declassification date. Submissions requiring DARPA to make a final classification determination shall be marked as follows:

CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION PENDING. Protect as though classified (insert the recommended classification level: (e.g., Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential)

Classified submissions shall be in accordance with the following guidance:

Confidential and Secret Collateral 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 be submitted via ONE of the two following methods:

1. Hand-carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR. Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA CDR at 703-526- 4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery.

OR

2. Mailed via appropriate U.S. Postal Service methods (e.g., (USPS) Registered Mail or USPS Express Mail). All classified information will be enclosed in opaque inner and outer covers and double wrapped. The inner envelope shall be sealed and plainly marked with the assigned classification and addresses of both sender and addressee.

The inner envelope shall be addressed to:

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

ATTN: DSO

Reference: DARPA-BAA-11-54

The outer envelope shall be sealed with no identification as to the classification of its contents and addressed to:

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Security & Intelligence Directorate, Attn: CDR

All Top Secret materials: Top Secret information should be hand carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR. Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA CDR at 703-526-4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery.

Special Access Program (SAP) Information: SAP information must be transmitted via approved methods. Prior to transmitting SAP information, contact the DARPA SAPCO at 703-526-4052 for instructions.

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI): SCI must be transmitted via approved methods. Prior to transmitting SCI, contact the DARPA Special Security Office (SSO) at 703-526-4052 for instructions.

Proprietary Data: All proposals containing proprietary data should have the cover page and each page containing proprietary data clearly marked as containing proprietary data. It is the Proposer’s responsibility to clearly define to the Government what is considered proprietary data.

Proposers must have existing and in-place prior to execution of an award, approved capabilities (personnel and facilities) to perform research and development at the classification level they propose. It is the policy of DARPA to treat all proposals as competitive information, and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Proposals will not be returned. The original of each proposal received will be retained at DARPA and all other non-required copies destroyed. A certification of destruction may be requested, provided the formal request is received at this office within 5 days after unsuccessful notification.

C. Full Proposal Submission Information

Proposers are required to submit full proposals by the time and date specified in the BAA in order to be considered during the initial round of selections. DARPA may evaluate full proposals received after this date for a period up to one year from date of posting on FedBizOpps and Grants.gov. Ability to review late submissions remains contingent on 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, full 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. Full proposals may not be submitted by fax or e-mail; any so sent will be disregarded.

Full proposals not meeting the format described in the BAA may not be reviewed.

1. Submission Instructions

For Proposers Submitting ONLY Full Proposals as Hard Copies/ On CD-ROM:

Proposers must submit an original and 1 copy of the full proposal [PDF format (preferred)] on a CD-ROM. Each copy must be clearly labeled with DARPA-BAA-11- 54, proposer organization, proposal title (short title recommended).

For Proposers Posting Full Proposals to Grants.Gov:

Grant or cooperative agreement full proposals may only be submitted to DARPA through Grants.gov or in hard-copy. Grant or cooperative agreement proposals may not be submitted through any other means (including T-FIMS and other comparable systems).

If proposers intend to use Grants.gov as their means of submission, then they must submit their entire proposal through Grants.gov; applications cannot be submitted in part to Grants.gov and in part as a hard-copy. Proposers using the Grants.gov APPLY do not submit paper proposals in addition to the Grants.gov APPLY electronic submission.

Proposers must complete the following steps in the order listed below before submitting full proposals on Grants.gov (these steps are also detailed at www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp):

• Proposers must obtain a DUNS number

• Proposers must register their organization in the Central Contractor Registration

(CCR) (https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx)

• Proposers must register the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) in

Grants.gov

• Proposers must have the organization’s E-BIZ point of contact authorize the AOR to submit applications.

Once Grants.gov has received a proposal submission, Grants.gov will send two email messages to advise proposers as to whether or not their proposals have been validated or rejected by the system; IT MAY TAKE UP TO TWO DAYS TO RECEIVE THESE EMAILS. The first email will confirm receipt of the proposal by the Grants.gov system;

this email only confirms receipt, not acceptance, of the proposal. The second will indicate that the application has been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. If the proposal is validated, then the proposer has successfully submitted their proposal. If the proposal is rejected, the proposer will have to resubmit their proposal. Once the proposal is retrieved by DARPA, the proposer will receive a third email from Grants.gov. To avoid missing deadlines, proposers should submit their proposals in advance of the final proposal due date with sufficient time to receive confirmations and correct any errors in the submission process through Grants.gov. For more information on submitting proposals to Grants.gov, visit the Grants.gov submissions page at:

http://grants.gov/applicants/apply_for_grants.jsp.

http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx…