DARPA-BAA-14-62.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Intense and Compact Neutron Sources (ICONS)

Defense Sciences Office

DARPA-BAA-14-62

September 24, 2014

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 2

Table of Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Introduction/Background B. Program Description/Scope C. Program Structure D. Proposal Overview E. Prototypes Overview and System Metrics F. Notional Architectures and Component Metrics G. Schedule/Milestones H. Deliverables

II. Award Information A. Awards B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

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 C. Reporting

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) B. Proposers’ Day

ATTACHMENT 1: ABSTRACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SLIDE

ATTACHMENT 2: FULL PROPOSAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SLIDES

ATTACHMENT 3: COST VOLUME CHECKLIST

ATTACHMENT 4: CONTRACTS COST ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET

ATTACHMENT 5: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS COST ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 3

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office (DSO)

Funding Opportunity Title: Intense and Compact Neutron Sources (ICONS)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: DARPA-BAA-14-62

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): 12.910 Research and Technology Development

Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time.)

o Posting Date: September 24, 2014 o Abstract Due Date: October 9, 2014, 4:00 p.m.

o Proposers’ Day: October 23, 2014. See Section VIII.B.

o FAQ Submission Deadline: November 13, 2014, 4:00 p.m.

o Proposal Due Date: November 20, 2014, 4:00 p.m.

Anticipated Individual Awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of Instruments that May be Awarded: Procurement contract, cooperative agreement, other transaction.

Agency contacts o Technical POC: Vincent Tang, Program Manager, DARPA/DSO o Solicitation Email: ICONS@darpa.mil o Solicitation Mailing Address:

DARPA/DSO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA-14-62

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 o DSO Solicitation Website:

http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Solicitations/DSO_Solicitations.aspx

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): FAQs for this solicitation may be viewed on the DSO Solicitation Website. See Section VIII.A for further information.

mailto:ICONS@darpa.mil http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Solicitations/DSO_Solicitations.aspx

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 4

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of platform technologies for revolutionary portable neutron sources for in-field sensing, detection, and imaging. 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.

This solicitation is being issued, and any resultant selection will be made, using procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.016. Proposals received as a result of this solicitation shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process.

DARPA solicitations are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (http://www.fbo.gov/) and, as applicable, the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov/). The following information is for those wishing to respond to this solicitation.

A. Introduction/Background The Intense and Compact Neutron Sources (ICONS) Program in DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office (DSO) is seeking innovative ideas and novel approaches to achieve revolutionary increases in neutron source intensity and reductions in device size, weight, and power (SWaP) for in-the-field neutron radiography and analytical techniques. Although current neutron source intensities are adequate for rapid, high resolution imaging, the large infrastructure required to achieve these intensities limits their applications. Achieving these neutron intensities in an expeditionary package will enable concepts-of-operations (CONOPS) that are currently infeasible due to SWaP constraints. While source intensity is only one aspect of the performance of a complete neutron analytical capability, achieving orders-of-magnitude improvements in portable neutron source intensities remains critical for widespread neutron imaging and analysis.

It is envisioned that these significant advances in neutron output versus system SWaP will be transformative for specialized portable neutron sensing CONOPS in addition to portable neutron radiography.

B. Program Description/Scope DARPA seeks innovative ideas for both isotropic and directional neutron sources that will allow orders-of-magnitude reductions in SWaP, while maintaining the intensities required for practical sensing timeframes and feature resolution. Achieving these goals within the timescale of the ICONS Program will require the parallel development of source component technologies, as well as the integration and optimization of these components within prototype systems. These component technologies are likely to range from but are not limited to:

Innovative, highly efficient ion sources.

Novel, high voltage, high gradient insulation and power supplies based on new multi-http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 5

function materials.

High yield fusion targets able to handle high power densities.

It is expected that new ion and plasma technologies, multi-function materials, and design approaches might be required to meet the aggressive system and associated component metrics of this program.

The design of these components is envisioned to be optimized by predictive modeling tools leveraging modern computational resources. For example, practical, small SWaP, high gradient accelerator columns with integrated insulator and power supply might be enabled by novel multi-function materials. In this case, the multi-function material might ultimately form a monolithic, non-discrete component used for both the high-voltage insulation and the equivalent power supply circuit elements. Such materials could have tailorable electrical and magnetic properties in configurations optimized by algorithms able to handle the multi-physics nature of the problem.

Another example might be new compact and high efficiency field ionization sources developed through design cycles with the aid of rapid computational optimization.

By the end of the three-year program, ICONS aims to demonstrate two highly portable prototypes at technological readiness level1 (TRL) of 5, capable of high resolution neutron radiography on timescales of 10s of minutes. These two prototypes form the two technical areas (TAs) of the ICONS Program:

TA1: a tool-box size isotropic source; and TA2: a human-portable directional neutron source.

Initially, the program will primarily develop and demonstrate the components required for these prototypes under defined source architectures. The latter half of the program will focus on refinement and integration of these components into the desired prototypes. Program success will demonstrate a path towards robust, field-able neutron sources for defense, industrial, and scientific applications, as well as the development of transformational technologies and design optimization techniques.

C. Program Structure The ICONS Program will be conducted in two 18-month phases and will address the two prototypes or “technical areas (TAs)” listed above. To allow for a more complete understanding of the overall program, both phases are described herein; however, this BAA is only soliciting for performance in Phase 1 of the program. Performance for Phase 2 will be solicited by a second BAA, which DARPA anticipates publishing toward the end of Phase 1. Participation in Phase 1 is neither a requirement for nor a guarantee of participation in Phase 2; Phase 1

1 Technological Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a set of nine graded definitions/descriptions of stages of technological maturity ranging from “basic principles observed and reported” (TRL 1) to “actual system proved through successful mission operations” (TRL 9). TRL 5 is defined as “component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment.” In TRL 5, fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include “high-fidelity” laboratory integration of components.

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 6

participants interested in performing in Phase 2 will need to submit new proposals under the Phase 2 BAA.

As stated above, Phase 1 (addressed by this BAA), consists of research and development (R&D) focused on core component technologies within notional design parameters and metrics as well as the design tools required to achieve and optimize component and overall prototype system performance. Performers must reach their defined metrics at the end of Phase 1 in order to demonstrate the needed performance and risk reduction required to achieve the program metrics by the end of Phase 2 (if they plan to propose to the Phase 2 BAA). To accommodate the aggressive time schedule, Phase 1 performers are expected to iterate design, construction, and test cycles with high frequency. The proposal narrative should clearly explain the research and development required and how the proposed work advances the state-of-the art, in terms of both the fundamental science involved and its application to source development. Proposals should also identify the risks involved and clearly describe how those risks are mitigated early on in the proposed effort.

Phase 2 (to be addressed by a forthcoming BAA near the end of Phase 1), will involve further component refinement and integration within the context of an overall prototype system, culminating in the assembly of functional neutron sources that achieve the required intensities, while demonstrating expeditionary potential at a TRL of 5 or higher. In the course of the program, if widely applicable and standalone design tools are developed, these may be considered for transition funding in Phase 2 to assist in potential commercialization of the tools.

D. Proposal Overview Proposals may be submitted for one or both technical areas; however, only one technical area may be addressed in a single proposal (i.e., separate proposals must be submitted for each technical area proposed). For each technical area, two types of proposals will be accepted for Phase 1:

Proposals for integrated, neutron source prototype system(s) are encouraged, using either the proposer’s own system architecture(s) or architecture(s) derived from the two notional ICONS system architectures provided in Section F below. The proposals should explicitly describe their proposed system architecture(s) along with the component metrics required by the architecture(s) to enable a technical assessment of whether the ultimate system performance metrics will likely be met. The proposed Phase 1 tasks should concentrate on developing, optimizing, and demonstrating the defined components within the chosen architecture. Additional Phase 1 efforts related to architecture development in preparation for potential performance in Phase 2 may be proposed; however, as stated above, Phase 1 selection is not a guarantee of Phase 2 participation. Phase 1 performers on integrated systems will still need to respond to the Phase 2 BAA with a new proposal for efforts beyond Phase 1.

Proposals that address component development and optimization, but not an integrated system may select component characteristics and performance metrics derived from the two notional ICONS system architectures. Alternatively, proposers are free to provide

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 7

their own architectures designed to meet the same prototype metrics. However, the proposal must technically justify the alternative architecture, clearly outline the required component metrics, and show that other required components already exist or identify that they would have to be developed by other performers on the ICONS Program. For the Phase 2 BAA, it is envisioned that Phase 1 component-only performers will partner with other proposers in order to provide the necessary expertise for assembly and demonstration of Phase 2 prototype systems that meet the overall ICONS intensity and SWaP metrics. (Note: participation in Phase 1 is neither a requirement for proposing to the Phase 2 BAA nor a guarantee of participation in Phase 2.)

Given the multiple technological advances required and the short time frame of the program, DARPA expects strong collaboration will be required in order to achieve Phase 2 system performance metrics. While teaming arrangements are not required for Phase 1 selection, once Phase 1 efforts have begun, performers will be encouraged to actively engage (independently and in forums arranged by DARPA) with the broader technical community and monitor the progress of other performers, with the end-goal of achieving optimal overall system performance. It is anticipated that the results of these efforts will become formalized in Phase 2 teaming arrangements. Phase 1 proposals should thus discuss anticipated programmatic flexibility, potential teaming agreements (if any), and intellectual property arrangements that will enable collaboration and focus on achieving performance metrics for the final prototype systems.

A criterion for Phase 1 selection is the projected ability of the proposed Phase 1 components and approaches to meet Phase 2 system performance metrics. A treatment of Phase 2 program plans is therefore required in the Phase 1 proposal.

For integrated prototype system proposals, this treatment should include anticipated Phase 2 plans and rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs for component refinement and integration into a system along with the expected number of development and testing cycles needed. It should also include a description of any technical risks that will not have been retired by the end of Phase 1 and anticipated Phase 2 plans to retire those risks.

Component-only proposals should address these Phase 2 topics for their component in the context of their chosen system architecture to the extent possible.

Overall, proposals that do not address a path towards final ICONS system goals are strongly discouraged.

E. Prototypes Overview and System Metrics By the end of the three-year, two-phase program, ICONS targets a TRL of 5 for the two separate transformational integrated prototypes described above. This section, as well as Section F below, provides more information on the overall prototype system metrics, the notional system architectures designed to meet those metrics, and the component metrics derivation.

Proposals must clearly state the expected component and system performance in terms of the system metrics described herein. For the components, include a description of the proposed component materials, the expected design and optimization methodology, anticipated design

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 8

trade-offs, and the component SWaP consumption within the envisioned total SWaP for the integrated prototype system. Proposers must define clear metrics for their component development efforts within the framework of the chosen system architecture and the provided system metrics. Proposers should clearly describe their testing plans to demonstrate these metrics for the proposed Phase 1 components.

Proposals must include discussion of the risks in the proposed effort, ordered from greatest to least, and the proposed R&D path to address these risks, along with mitigation strategies that reduce them early in the program. Clearly describe any prior and ongoing efforts that will be leveraged for the proposed work.

The ICONS prototype systems and system metrics are as follows:

Technical Area 1 Primary Metrics: A tool-box sized Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) neutron source, with the following primary performance objectives: average output of 1e10 neutrons/second/steradian at SWaP: 8 liters, 30 lbs., 400 watts, and an effective spot size of 2 millimeters Full-Width-Half-Maximum (FWHM). The neutron output can be isotropic.

For the purposes of this program, use of deuterated targets as a surrogate for tritiated targets is acceptable. Since tritium is ultimately envisioned, the system must be capable of sealed operation.

If the primary TA1 metrics as outlined above are likely to be met based on the proposed approach, proposals may also include additional efforts designed to meet the following desirable, secondary objectives:

Ability for the source to produce thermalized neutrons for radiography, likely through a coupled moderator that produces a collimated beam able to resolve ~millimeter-scale features on an imaging system with no magnification. The collimator size and weight should be minimized but would not be considered as part of the source SWaP above. It might be possible for part of the source structure to additionally serve as a moderator.

Ability for pulsed operation. If proposed, clearly state the anticipated pulse widths, pulse rise and fall times, and duty cycle. Also provide the anticipated neutron output per pulse and the average neutron output per second.

Ability to produce x-rays viable for x-ray radiography, preferably with minimal to no re-configuration of the device. If proposed, clearly state the expected x-ray production performance in terms of x-rays yield, energy spectrum, and angular emission, along with expected spot-size.

Technical Area 2 Primary Metrics: A human-portable, directional neutron source capable of neutron production via the Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) reaction with 4 MeV deuteron beams onto a deuterated target, with the following performance: average output of 2e10 neutrons/second/steradian at 0 degrees with thick target and SWaP: 250 liters, 80lbs, 2 kilowatts, and an effective spot size of 3 millimeters (FWHM).

If the primary TA2 metrics as outlined above are likely to be met based on the proposed

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 9

approach, proposals may also include additional efforts designed to meet the following desirable, secondary objectives:

The capability of using the same system (or a system based on the same architecture but preferably with a smaller SWaP) to produce neutrons that are completely collimated within a defined, small forward angle. For example, ~60 keV neutrons confined to a forward emission angle of 30 degree along the z-axis of the accelerator can be produced via the endothermic proton-lithium-7 reaction using proton beam energies of ~1.93 MeV.

Ability for pulsed operation. If proposed, clearly state the anticipated pulse widths, pulse rise and fall times, and duty cycle. Also include the anticipated neutron output per pulse and the average neutron output per second.

Ability for the source to produce thermalized neutrons for radiography, likely through a coupled moderator that produces a collimated beam able to resolve ~millimeter-scale features on an imaging system with no magnification. The collimator size and weight should be minimized but would not be considered as part of the source SWaP above. It might be possible for part of the source structure to additionally serve as a moderator.

Ability to produce x-rays viable for x-ray radiography, preferably with minimal to no re-configuration of the device. If proposed, clearly state the expected x-ray production performance in terms of x-rays yield, energy spectrum, and angular emission, along with expected spot-size.

Further reduction in size to 80 liters enabling neutron source volumes comparable to commercially available x-ray tubes designed for field operation.

Exceptions to fully addressing the required primary metrics in either technical area will only be considered in compelling cases. Such proposals (i.e., those that can only partially address the desired metrics), should emphasize the unique capabilities of the proposed approach and why those capabilities might justify relaxation of the system metrics and enable highly portable, in-the field neutron radiography and/or unique threat detection capabilities.

Although a specific lifetime metric has not been identified for the system at this early stage of the R&D process, it is anticipated that any deployable system would require minimum lifetimes on the order of 10s to 100s of hours. Proposers should clearly describe if there are expected and/or potential limitations to system lifetimes based on their approaches.

Lastly, in order to reach TRL 5, DARPA expects that the integrated prototypes will be laboratory devices tested in realistic operating conditions. For example, if the planned SWaP is not to be explicitly met or demonstrated in the prototype, a feasible and clear path to meet the ultimate SWaP must be shown and discussed. All fundamental or foreseeable challenges must have been addressed. For example, for sealed tube operation, although it would be preferable for the sealed tube with the ultimate envisioned SWaP of a deployed system to be constructed and demonstrated, this might be prohibitive for a TRL 5 device. It would, therefore, be acceptable to demonstrate the required neutron performance of the integrated components in a larger valved-off vacuum vessel, as long as the results of the experiment make clear that no fundamental challenge remains for further integration. More specifically, this might mean that within the

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 10

sealed chamber, grounded enclosures that represent the contours of a seal tube would be placed to ensure a realistic electric field profile for the components. Proposers should clearly describe their component and integrated development plans within the above context.

F. Notional Architectures and Component Metrics The notional architectures described herein do not necessarily represent the best system approach to meeting the program prototype system metrics. Proposers are welcome to propose and define their own architecture and component breakdown that, in their view, would best meet the program prototype system metrics. These notional architectures are provided to serve as a potential guide and to suggest viable Phase 1 component metrics, especially for component-only proposers.

Technical Area 1 Notional Architecture and Metrics A notional architecture that would satisfy the TA1 prototype system metrics is a conventional DC accelerator using the D-T fusion reaction with the following integrated components:

1. An ion source with atomic D+ output on the mA level.

2. -150 kV acceleration column.

3. Tapered tritiated target able to handle the nominal 150 W beam power and produce an effective 2 mm (FWHM) spot-size when viewed on the axis of the accelerator. The target must also suppress secondary emission.

4. The integrated SWaP must not exceed 8 L, 30 lbs, 400 W.

The ion source is a key component here, and a possible set of Phase 1 metrics that would demonstrate viability for transition of an ion source into Phase 2 for refinement and further integration could be:

the ability to produce 0.5 mA of D+ beam current in a 2L, 10 lbs, and 200 W SWaP, and the ability to match the output of the beam to an accelerator column through a beam profile that minimizes or eliminates focusing components.

Technical Area 2 Notional Architecture and Metrics A notional architecture that would satisfy the TA2 prototype system metric is a conventional DC accelerator with the following integrated components:

1. An ion source with atomic D+ output greater than 200 uA.

2. 4 MV accelerator column with integrated high voltage power supply, and with greater than 4 MV/m acceleration gradient.

3. Targets capable of handling nominal beam powers of 400 W to 1 kW and producing an effective 3 mm (FWHM) spot-size when viewed on the axis of the accelerator.

4. The integrated SWaP must not exceed 250L, 80lbs, 2kW.

5. Beam trajectory analysis show that the system outlined in 1) to 4) could also produce proton beams suitable for p-Li reactions meeting the secondary neutron objective.

For the key components, a possible set of Phase 1 metrics that would demonstrate viability for

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 11

transition of those components into Phase 2 for further refinement and integration could be:

Ion source: the ability to produce 0.2 mA of D+ in a 2L, 10 lbs, and 200 W SWaP, and the ability to match the output of the beam to an accelerator column through a beam profile that minimizes or eliminates focusing components.

High gradient acceleration column and power supply: the ability to provide 2 MV in an accelerator column with structural and vacuum insulation capable of greater than 4 MV/m stand-off in a 100L, 25 lbs, and 100 W (without beam) SWaP.

Target: highly loaded deuterium target capable of handling beam power of 400 W over a 3 mm spot-size with SWaP of 40L, 20 lbs, and 100W (without beam).

G. Schedule/Milestones Subject to the availability of funding, the program is intended to run for approximately 36 months. Proposers should specify the research and technology development schedule for the full period of performance, split between Phase 1 (18 months) and Phase 2 (18 months). Each phase should receive treatment within the Phase 1 proposal, though Phase 2 plans will only serve to enable DARPA to evaluate and mitigate programmatic risk. As stated above, Phase 1 participants interested in performing in Phase 2 will need to submit proposals to the anticipated Phase 2 BAA.

Proposals should include a detailed schedule that incorporates proposed deliverables/milestones and is consistent with the development status of the proposed approaches. A target start date of March 2, 2015 may be assumed for planning purposes.

For Phase 1, Principal Investigator (PI) meetings will be held approximately every 3 months starting in Month 6 of the program. The locations for meetings and other events will be specified by the Government. The goals of the PI meetings will be to: (a) review component development, system architecture, and integration plans; (b) review accomplishments of each performer; and

(c) enable coordination and teaming.

Regular teleconference meetings will be scheduled with the Government team for progress reporting as well as issue identification and mitigation. Proposers should be prepared to support at least one site visit by DARPA during the course of the program.

A formal design review will be conducted 12 months after the beginning of the program.

Component performance and integration feasibility will be assessed. Test plans, experiments, and progress tracking towards this formal design review should be identified in the schedule.

H. Deliverables All performers shall be required to provide the following deliverables:

Quarterly technical report describing progress made, resources expended, and any issues requiring the attention of the Government team shall be provided within ten days after the end of the quarter.

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 12

Intermediate and final versions of design documents and software as requested.

Final report. The final report shall concisely summarize the effort conducted.

Reporting as outlined in Sections VI.B. and VI.C.

II. Award Information A. Awards

Multiple awards are anticipated. The level of funding for individual awards made under this solicitation has not been predetermined and will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. Awards under this solicitation will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous and provide best value to the Government, all factors considered, including the potential contributions of the proposed work, overall funding strategy, and availability of funding. See Section V for further information.

The Government reserves the right to:

select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation;

make awards without discussions with proposers;

conduct discussions with proposers if it is later determined to be necessary;

segregate portions of resulting awards into pre-priced options;

accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award;

fund proposals in increments with options for continued work at the end of one or more phases;

request additional documentation once the award instrument has been determined (e.g., representations and certifications); and remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner.

Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction (OT), depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors.

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

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 13

B. Fundamental Research It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 established the national policy for controlling the flow of scientific, technical, and engineering information produced in federally funded fundamental research at colleges, universities, and laboratories. The Directive defines fundamental research as follows:

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

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein may be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research. The Government does not anticipate applying publication restrictions of any kind to individual awards for fundamental research that may result from this BAA. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, the Government 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, the Government 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.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. Appropriate clauses will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the prime contractor is restricted research, a subawardee may be conducting contracted fundamental research. In those cases, it is the prime contractor’s responsibility to explain in its proposal why its subawardee’s effort is contracted fundamental research.

The following statement or similar provision will be incorporated into any resultant non-fundamental research procurement contract or other transaction:

“There shall be no dissemination or publication, except within and between the contractor and any subawardees, of information developed under this contract or contained in the reports to be furnished pursuant to this contract without prior written approval of DARPA’s Public Release Center (DARPA/PRC). All technical reports will be given proper review by appropriate authority to determine which Distribution Statement is to be applied prior to the initial distribution of these reports by the contractor. With regard to subawardee proposals for Contracted Fundamental Research, papers resulting from

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 14

unclassified contracted fundamental research are exempt from prepublication controls and this review requirement, pursuant to DoD Instruction 5230.27 dated October 6, 1987.

When submitting material for written approval for open publication, the contractor/awardee must submit a request for public release to the DARPA/PRC and include the following information: (1) Document Information: document title, document author, short plain-language description of technology discussed in the material (approx.

30 words), number of pages (or minutes of video) and document type (e.g., briefing, report, abstract, article, or paper); (2) Event Information: event type (conference, principal investigator meeting, article or paper), event date, desired date for DARPA's approval; (3) DARPA Sponsor: DARPA Program Manager, DARPA office, and contract number; and (4) Contractor/Awardee's Information: POC name, email and phone. Allow four weeks for processing; due dates under four weeks require a justification. Unusual electronic file formats may require additional processing time. Requests may be sent either via email to prc@darpa.mil or by mail at 675 North Randolph Street, Arlington VA 22203-2114, telephone (571) 218-4235. Refer to the following for link for information about DARPA’s public release process:

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Public_Release_Center/Public_Release_Center.aspx.”

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.

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

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government entities (e.g., 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 meet the following conditions: (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector; and (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and their compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement and terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be prime contractors or subawardees. Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations. At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC eligibility submissions on a case-by-case mailto:prc@darpa.mil

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 15

basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

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

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 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, and 208). 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. The Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the proposer’s responsibility 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. As part of the proposal submission, all members of the proposed team (prime proposers, proposed subawardees, 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, subawardees, consultant, or individual supports and identify the prime contract number(s). 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 a conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the proposer should send his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict via email to the BAA email address before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument (e.g., OTs under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371).

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 16

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package

This document contains all information required to submit a response to this solicitation. No additional forms, kits, or other materials are needed except as referenced herein. No request for proposal or additional solicitation regarding this opportunity will be issued, nor is additional information available except as provided at the Federal Business Opportunities website (http://www.fbo.gov), the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov/), or referenced herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

1. Abstract Information

Proposers are highly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out of scope proposal. The abstract provides a synopsis of the proposed project, including brief answers to the following questions:

What is the proposed work attempting to accomplish or do?

How is it done today, and what are the limitations?

Who will care and what will the impact be if the work is successful?

How much will it cost, and how long will it take?

DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea. DARPA will attempt to reply to abstracts via email within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide detailed feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. Abstracts will be reviewed in the order they are received. DARPA will review all full proposals submitted using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any comments resulting from the review of an abstract.

Abstract Format: Abstracts shall not exceed a maximum of 8 pages including all figures, tables, and charts. The page limit does not include the cover sheet, an official transmittal letter (optional), or executive summary slide.

All pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with 1-inch margins and font size not smaller than 12 point. Font sizes of 8 or 10 point may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Document files must be in .pdf, .ppt, .pptx, .odx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats. Submissions must be written in English.

Abstracts must include the following components:

Cover Sheet: Provide the following information:

(1) Label: “Abstract”

(2) BAA number (DARPA-BAA-14-62)

(3) Technical Area

(4) Abstract title http://www.grants.gov/

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 17

(5) Lead organization name

(6) Technical point of contact (POC) including name, mailing address, telephone, and email address

(7) Administrative POC including name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address

(8) Estimated total cost

(9) Estimated period of performance

(10) Primary subcontractors

(11) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number2

(12) Taxpayer identification number (TIN)3

(13) Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code4

Executive Summary Slide: Provide a one slide summary in PowerPoint that effectively and succinctly conveys the main objective, key innovations, expected impact, and other unique aspects of the proposed project. A slide template is provided as Attachment 1 to the BAA posted at http://www.fbo.gov.

Goals and Impact: Describe what is being proposed and what difference it will make (qualitatively and quantitatively) if successful. Describe the innovative aspects of the project in the context of existing capabilities and approaches, clearly delineating the relationship of this work to any other projects from the past and present.

Technical Plan: Outline and address all technical challenges inherent in the approach and possible solutions for overcoming potential problems. Provide appropriate specific milestones (quantitative, if possible) at intermediate stages of the project to demonstrate progress.

Capabilities/Management Plan: Provide a brief summary of expertise of the team, including subcontractors and key personnel. Identify a principal investigator for the project and include a description of the team’s organization including roles and responsibilities. Describe the organizational experience in this area, existing intellectual property required to complete the project, and any specialized facilities to be used as part of the project. List Government-furnished materials or data assumed to be available.

Cost and Schedule: Provide a cost estimate for resources over the proposed timeline of the project, broken down by year. Include labor, materials, a list of deliverables and delivery schedule. Provide cost estimates for each subcontractor (may be a rough order of magnitude).

2 The DUNS number is used as the Government's contractor identification code for all procurement-related activities. Go to http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/index.jsp to request a DUNS number (may take at least one business day). See Section VI.B.7. for further information.

3 See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96696,00.html for information on requesting a TIN. Note, requests may take from 1 business day to 1 month depending on the method (online, fax, mail).

4 A CAGE Code identifies companies doing or wishing to do business with the Federal Government. See Section VI.B.7 for further information.

http://www.fbo.gov/ http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/index.jsp http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96696,00.html

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 18

2. Full Proposal Information Proposers are encouraged to submit concise, but descriptive, proposals. Specific examples of problems, approaches, or goals are preferred to qualitative generalities. The Government will not consider pages in excess of the page count limitation, as described herein. Proposals with fewer than the maximum number of pages will not be penalized. Information incorporated into Volume 2: Cost Proposal which is not related to cost will not be considered.

Proposals consist of Volume 1: Technical and Management Proposal (including mandatory subsection xii (Administrative and National Policy Requirements)) and the optional bibliography (subsection xiii) and Volume 2: Cost Proposal.

All pages in both the Technical and Management Proposal and the Cost Proposal shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with 1-inch margins, single-line spacing, and a font size not smaller than 12 point. Font sizes of 8 or 10 point may be used for figures, tables, and charts in the Technical and Management Proposal only. Document files must be in .pdf, .odx, .ppt, .pptx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats. Submissions must be written in English.

Proposals not meeting the format prescribed herein may not be reviewed.

a. Volume 1: Technical and Management Proposal

The maximum page count for Volume 1 is 32 pages, including all figures, tables and charts but not including the cover sheet or table of contents. An official transmittal letter is mandatory and is not included in the page count. Subsection xii (Administrative and National Policy Requirements) does not count against the page limit and is mandatory. The bibliography does not count against the page limit and is optional. Additional information not explicitly called for here must not be submitted with the proposal, but may be included as links in the bibliography. Such materials will be considered for the reviewers’ convenience only and not evaluated as part of the proposal.

Volume 1 must include the following components:

i. Cover Sheet: Include the following information.

(1) Label: “Proposal: Volume 1”

(2) BAA number (DARPA-BAA-14-62)

(3) Technical Area

(4) Proposal title

(5) Proposer’s reference number, if any

(6) Lead organization (prime contractor) name

(7) Type of organization, selected from the following categories: Large

Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Other Small Business, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, or Other Nonprofit

(8) Technical point of contact (POC) including name, mailing address, telephone, and email address

(9) Administrative POC including name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address

DARPA-BAA-14-62 ICONS 19

(10) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and any proposed option(s)

(11) Award instrument requested: procurement contract (specify type), cooperative agreement or OT5

(12) Place(s) and period(s) of performance

(13) List all other team members (subcontractors and consultants, including

Technical POC name, organization and organization type

(14) Date proposal was prepared

(15) Proposal validity period

ii. Official Transmittal Letter

iii. Table of Contents

iv. Executive Summary Provide a synopsis of the proposed project, including answers to the following questions:

What is the proposed work attempting to accomplish or do?

How is it done today, and what are the limitations?

Who or what will be affected and what will be the impact if the work is successful?

How much will it cost, and how long will it take?

The executive summary should include a description of the key technical challenges, a concise review of the technologies proposed to overcome these challenges and achieve the project’s goal, and a clear statement of the novelty and uniqueness of the proposed work.

Executive Summary Slides: Provide a slide-based summary in PowerPoint that effectively and succinctly conveys the main objective, key innovations, expected impact, and other unique aspects of the proposed project. A slide template is provided as Attachment 2 to the BAA posted at http://www.fbo.gov. All proposals must include the metric summary tables given in the Executive Summary Slide template:

For each component to be developed, proposers must identify key metrics, the current state of the art, and the value of the metric that enables revolutionary improvements for the integrated system.