DARPA-BAA-15-59.pdf

DARPA-BAA-15-59

Broad Agency Announcement

Gremlins

TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

16 SEPTEMBER 2015

Contents Contents Part I: Overview Information Part II: Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Program Vision B. GOS Cost Approach C. Program Plan D. Phase I Objectives E. Phase I Schedule and Deliverables F. Phase I Success Metrics G. Phase II and Phase III Objectives

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. Abstract Submission Information D. Proposal Submission Information

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 D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Intellectual Property Procurement Contract Proposers B. Non-Procurement Contract Proposers – Noncommercial and Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) C. All Proposers – Patents D. All Proposers – Intellectual Property Representations

Part I: Overview Information

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

Funding Opportunity Title – Gremlins Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – DARPA-BAA-15-59 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date 16 SEP 2015 o Proposer’s Day 24 SEP 2015 o Abstract Due Date 28 SEP 2015 by 5:00 PM Eastern o Deadline for Questions 19 OCT 2015 by 5:00 PM Eastern o Proposal Due Date 17 NOV 2015 by 12:00 PM Eastern

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The goal of the Gremlins program is to demonstrate safe and reliable aerial launch and recovery of multiple unmanned aircraft, with traceability to an objective system capable of employing and recovering diverse distributed payloads in volley quantities.

Gremlins will also explore the operating cost advantages of limited-life, reusable systems. The objective of Phase I is to conduct system architecture and design trade studies to develop a conceptual Gremlins objective system design, analyze and trade aerial launch and aerial recovery techniques, develop operational concepts, and inform demonstration system design and planning for future phases. Phase II will continue design development and risk reduction activities culminating in PDR and Phase III will proceed to a compelling flight demonstration.

Total amount of money to be awarded: Up to $15.8M for Phase I. Estimated funding available for Phase II and Phase III will be provided towards the end of Phase I.

Anticipated individual awards: Multiple awards are anticipated for Phase I.

Types of instruments that may be awarded: Procurement contract or other transaction Agency contact o The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

DARPA-BAA-15-59@darpa.mil or:

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA-15-59

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

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. This BAA is being issued, and any resultant selection will be made, using procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.016. Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA. Proposals received as a result of this BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process. DARPA BAAs are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website, http://www.fbo.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

DARPA is seeking innovative solutions that will expand the knowledge base and design capabilities for the Gremlins program. The use of a BAA allows for a wide range of innovative ideas and concepts, and proposers will have the flexibility to develop a tailored program plan that best advances the Gremlins program goals. The goal of the Gremlins program is to demonstrate safe and reliable aerial launch and recovery of multiple unmanned aircraft, with traceability to an objective system capable of employing and recovering diverse distributed payloads in volley quantities. This effort will also prove a new approach to low cost platform operations by combining attributes of small vehicle size, reusability, and limited vehicle design life. Key contributing technology areas include novel aerial launch and aerial recovery techniques, equipment, and aircraft integration concepts; low-cost, attritable airframe designs; design for limited life; high fidelity aerodynamic analysis; aeroelastic analysis; Monte Carlo simulation; automated waveoff strategy; high precision digital flight control; precision relative navigation; aerial refueling techniques; efficient small turbine engines; automated fuel tank inerting and engine shutoff; small distributed payload integration; modular payload capabilities; precision station keeping; low-force, high reliability mating; turbulent zone transit; low-impact, roll-on host modifications; and any other enabling technologies unique to a proposer’s concept.

A performer’s selection and inclusion of technologies should be weighted by impact on objective system cost-per-use and by demonstration value. Note that DARPA is interested in full system solutions in response to this BAA.

DARPA has developed the following program terminology, which will be used throughout this BAA:

Gremlins: DARPA program name gremlin: An individual unmanned air vehicle

Gremlins System: The collective of multiple gremlin air vehicles and other components (e.g., launch segment, control segment, etc.) necessary for integrated operations of the system as a whole

Gremlins Objective System (GOS): The envisioned eventual operational system

Gremlins Demonstration System (GDS): Derived from GOS to enable rapid demonstration under the DARPA Gremlins program

Host: The modified aircraft used for launch and/or recovery operations

The Government will use a phased acquisition approach for the Gremlins program under this BAA (see Figure 2). The Gremlins program will be conducted in three phases.

Phase I will include system conceptualization trade studies focusing on developing a Gremlins Objective System (GOS) design, deriving a Gremlins Demonstration System (GDS) design, and developing a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) for achieving an affordable system demonstration. Phase II will be a technology maturation phase of the Phase 1 designs that will include system preliminary design and risk reduction demonstrations, and Phase III will proceed through detailed design and fabrication to demonstrate the GDS in flight. At this time, DARPA is soliciting firm proposals for Phase I only. Competition for subsequent phases (II/III) will be limited to only Phase I prime contractors performing on the preceding phase. Proposal guidance for Phases II and III will be provided only to Phase I performers towards the end of Phase I. However, the Government reserves the right to issue a new solicitation or change the award instrument for Phases II and III.

DARPA plans to invest up to $15.8M for multiple Phase I performers. Program continuation beyond Phase I will depend on Phase I results and funding availability.

DARPA has established a preliminary flight demonstration objective date of 1QFY20 for full scale launch and recovery demonstrations that validate the GOS capability to meet program metrics. The intent of these budget and schedule goals is to ensure that technology maturation activities are appropriately focused and that programmatic risk is focused on those new and enabling technologies required to meet Gremlins objectives.

A. Program Vision

The objective of the Gremlins program is to explore the feasibility and potential of air-launched, recoverable unmanned aircraft. The program will conduct design trade studies, risk reduction activities, and GDS launch and recovery demonstrations to validate critical enabling technologies and performance capabilities of a future GOS. The culminating demonstration(s) are expected to serve as a proof-of-concept of an air-launched, air-recovered, volley quantity unmanned aircraft system (UAS). This section describes the foundational philosophy and objectives of the Gremlins program.

As part of a future concept of operations, it is envisioned that instead of using conventional, monolithic systems to conduct missions in denied environments, multiple platforms with coordinated and distributed warfighting functions can be employed to saturate adversary defenses while achieving mission objectives (Figure 1). Within this concept of operations, the GOS would provide options for delivering Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and other non-kinetic payloads to the battlespace in a manner that is robust and responsive. Responsiveness is achieved through the use of conventional aircraft hosts to transport and launch a volley of gremlins from stand-off ranges. Furthermore, by scaling up the number of systems engaged in operations, the impact of a loss of any individual gremlin is reduced as a result of the collaboration between vehicles.

Figure 1. The Gremlins program envisions a broad shift to distributed architectures for airborne operations

Not only does the GOS have the potential to enable enhanced mission effectiveness in contested environments, but it also explores an approach to dramatically reduce the cost of operations via three compounded principles. First, instead of relying only on expensive, stealthy, penetrating, multi-function aircraft to execute critical functions such as electronic attack or target geolocation, larger numbers of much smaller but coordinated air-launched unmanned aircraft can be employed. Using an increased number of smaller platforms to accomplish a mission provides a powerful cost lever. Today, modified missiles might be used to accomplish such distributed missions; however, Gremlins envisions a second principle to help drive down costs. Instead of discarding the entire airframe, engine, avionics, and payload with every mission (as done with missiles), a gremlin can be recovered, and these costs are amortized over multiple uses. Third, instead of following the conventional model of reusable vehicle design that is structured around 30-year service lives, Gremlins envisions short, limited design lifetimes of up to 20 uses. A short, target-drone-like design lifetime leverages the latent capability of missile-like components without demanding extensive fatigue, maintainability, and upgrade considerations, which are major cost drivers for conventional reusable aircraft. Target-drone-like checkout and condition-based part replacement concepts are also of interest. It should be noted that, for the value of recoverable platforms to be realized, consideration must be extended beyond the timeframe of a single scenario and applied over a campaign or lifecycle spanning a usage spectrum of varying intensities.

DARPA has established the initial design metric for the GOS at threshold and goal levels, shown in Table 1. It is anticipated that these metrics may evolve over the course of the Gremlins program, particularly as a result of the Phase I conceptualization studies that will assist DARPA in better understanding the feasibility, trade space, and ultimate value proposition of the GOS. It is not necessary for a gremlin design concept to meet every goal-level air vehicle performance metric concurrently; rather, these attributes define a payload-radius-endurance design and trade space of interest.

It is anticipated that the primary focus of the Gremlins program will be on the technical challenges associated with aerial launch and recovery of volley quantities of air vehicles.

However, the Gremlins concept is motivated both by the potential for new operational capabilities and robust air operations architectures, as well as the potential cost advantages of recoverable air-launched systems. Thus, affordability is an important consideration. The initial cost goals provided in Table 1 serve as a reference point for development and are further discussed in Section I.B.

GOS Attributes Threshold Goal gremlin air vehicle metrics

Design radius 300 nm 500 nm Design loiter time at design radius 1 hr 3 hr Design payload 60 lb 120 lb Maximum one-way range, no loiter

Fallout from system design

Loiter time for recovery As needed Maximum speed Mach 0.7 Mach 0.8+ Max launch altitude not specified 40,000 ft + (compatible with launch from many aircraft) Propulsion system Objective system may be designed with conceptual design engine model (at existing technology level), or existing propulsion system, or modified propulsion system (e.g., addition of fan stage).

Payload power 800 Watt 1200 Watt Payload installation not specified Side and fore/down-facing aperture provisions Payload type Modular, with provisions for depot-level change–out between various payloads, including radio-frequency (RF) payloads and electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) payloads, among others.

Assume typical RF payload power density to determine payload size/volume requirements.

Design life not specified 20 uses gremlin air vehicle recurring (flyaway) cost, exclusive of mission payloads $700 K (FY15) Minimal cost

Gremlin System-level metrics Host launch platforms B-52, B-1, C-130 As many aircraft as possible, including tactical (fighter) Launch quantity 8 or more per host 20+ for large aircraft host Host recovery aircraft C-130 Recovery quantity and timeline ≥4 gremlins recovering in <30 min; goal to be capable of recovering 8 or more in total.

Probability of successful recovery ≥0.95 within time window Probability of host (launch or recovery) aircraft loss due to gremlins operations not specified <1x10^-7 incidents per flying hour

Recovery and refurbishment cycle <24 hours from recovery to re-fit onto aircraft for launch, with minimal manpower and personnel costs. Fit within USAF structure for maintenance/checkout at forward operating base.

Host system equipment, recurring (flyaway) cost, exclusive of command/control system costs.

$10 M (FY15) $2 M or less (FY15)

Table 1. GOS Attributes

It is desired that both GOS and GDS recovery will be performed using a C-130 with appropriate equipment or modifications. This choice was based on the wide availability of this platform for demonstration and eventual operational usage, its broad flight envelope, and its ability to be readily modified with additional equipment. Only on the basis of an exceptional argument for operational and demonstration value would the Government consider other host platforms for aerial recovery.

Preferably, the GOS should require minimal host aircraft modifications. Ideally, the host aircraft equipment would be roll-on, interfacing with standard air vehicle interfaces to reduce integration and airworthiness effort, turn-around time, and costs. More extensive host modifications should weigh capability benefits against modification cost.

B. GOS Cost Approach

The Gremlins program is founded on the premise that reusable (recoverable) systems can provide cost advantages over expendable systems when operational parameters permit their survival and recovery, enabling amortization of payload and airframe costs over multiple missions instead of a single mission. This advantage can be expressed in system cost per operational use and includes launch costs, amortized payload and airframe costs, recovery costs, and refurbishment costs. It is expected that driving down the cost per operational use will be an important trade parameter. For example, engineering decisions on the specific equipment to be recovered (if not an entire gremlin air vehicle) may be informed by an operating cost estimate.

Cost is also a useful means of weighing vehicle characteristics such as survivability. Unlike conventional monolithic system operations, mission effectiveness of the GOS concept depends on a sufficient portion of the collective remaining operational and not on the survival of any particular air vehicle. Mission effectiveness for a GOS is thus a function of many variables, including quantity employed, payloads carried, and individual vehicle characteristics. Performers are advised to use cost per mission as a metric to guide design.

With potentially multiple diverse GOS concepts, it will be difficult to rigorously evaluate performer operational use cost estimates. Therefore, DARPA established the more straightforward system flyaway cost and usage period goals in Table 1. For the gremlin air vehicle, the cost goal is based on achieving or improving upon target drone or missile costs per pound. It is further advantageous to have gremlin costs commensurate with or less than standoff defensive shot costs. For the host segment modifications to the recovery platform, the basis of the cost goal is historic cargo aircraft modifications and roll-on capability costs.

To further establish a consistent framework for analysis, DARPA has established the following assumptions to be used in all GOS cost estimates:

Production quantity: 1000 gremlin air vehicles Nominal design life per gremlin: 20 uses Host system modification kit quantity: 25 Host system modification kit design life: 20 years or 15,000 hours

It is recognized that system performance (air vehicle size and capability) is balanced against cost, and that the Government’s understanding of best value for total system capability and cost may evolve over the course of the program.

C. Program Plan

The Gremlins program will be conducted in three phases, as shown in the baseline schedule on Figure 2. Details of the Phase II and III schedule and milestone placement are expected to be guided by proposer submissions and Phase I results.

Figure 2. Notional Gremlins Program Schedule

Each phase will progressively mature the design and technologies required to validate the ability to achieve the Gremlins system goals and move incrementally toward the Gremlins objective system (GOS). The goal of this program strategy is to provide information at key program milestones to enable decision-makers to determine whether it is technically and fiscally prudent to continue the program. It also allows decision-makers to continue the design concepts that are consistent with the funding that is available. In keeping with the DARPA legacy of innovation, we are pushing to determine the technical feasibility, operational utility, military value, affordability, and suitability of a Gremlins Objective System for transition to the Services.

With respect to the phase description provided in this solicitation, it should be noted that DARPA is open to innovative or high-value development approaches that rapidly and incrementally build or demonstrate capability or provide early spinoff transition opportunities on the way towards a culminating Phase III GDS demonstration. DARPA will also consider approaches that achieve program goals more rapidly than the baseline schedule in Figure 2. The Phase II/III plan description provided in Section I.G is a point of departure, and proposers should articulate the value of their contemplated approach in their Initial Demonstration Plan description.

The following sections describe the specific technical objectives of Phase I as well as preliminary expectations for Phases II and III.

D. Phase I Objectives

The primary objectives of Phase I are to conduct the system architecture analyses, system requirements development, trade studies, and operational capability definition necessary to develop 1) a GOS conceptual design, including recovery approach and operational concept;

2) a technology maturation plan (TMP) for maturing critical enabling technologies to enable system launch and recovery demonstrations in Phase III; and 3) GDS requirements, conceptual design, and demonstration objectives. The performer should implement a disciplined systems engineering process to ensure optimized GOS and high value GDS solutions.

The results from a successful Phase I program will convince DARPA that: (a) the Gremlins Objective System is a feasible, affordable and effective option for enabling a distributed warfighting capability; (b) the TMP and demonstration system conceptual design present a feasible and affordable approach to reduce system development risk within the program schedule and budget; and (c) continuation into Phase II is warranted. More detail on each of the Phase I objectives is provided in the following paragraphs.

1. Gremlins Objective System conceptual design & operational concept development

In Phase I, the performer should conduct system architecture, operational employment, affordability, and design trade studies to develop a conceptual GOS design and operational concept that best achieve or exceed the metrics provided in Table 1 and reflect the overall Program Vision outlined in Section I.A.

Historical evidence suggests that aerial recovery may be the logistically simplest and least expensive means to recover small air vehicles, especially at long distances and without assured control of land or sea. Aerial recovery has the least performance impact on the recovered air vehicle and can lead to a fast recycle time at the point of departure. However, aerial recovery – certainly for multiple air vehicles – is a difficult technical challenge that requires physical demonstration.

The system design should consider all systems and subsystems associated with a Gremlins operational system, including the air vehicle, launch and recovery segments, mission control segments, supportability, and deployability, to a level of detail necessary to substantiate the transition potential of the design and derive a comprehensive and complete

TMP.

To assist in development and refinement of their GOS system architecture as well as to support transition discussions, the performer shall produce an Operational Concept briefing that defines the functionalities and sequencing for typical system operation. This briefing should cover all aspects of the system, including integration with host aircraft, launch and recovery, command and control (C2), mission execution, maintenance and support, and host aircraft modifications and required storage volume. This briefing should fully characterize the GOS vision and assist DARPA in articulating this vision to potential Service partners.

DARPA has developed a nominal mission profile, provided in Figure 2. DARPA will consider alternative mission approaches that would offer operational, cost, or other benefits. Other critical elements and assumptions required for system design, such as fuel margin, atmospheric or wind conditions, recovery loiter time margin, and vehicle weight contingency, should be articulated by the performer.

Figure 2. Nominal Mission Profile (not to scale)

The metrics provided in Table 1 and Figure 2 were developed based on preliminary analyses conducted by DARPA as a point of departure. Leveraging this design space, the team should conduct comprehensive trades and analyses to identify the system and individual gremlin vehicle performance required to meet program objectives. They should also identify the corresponding suite of critical and enabling technologies for achieving that performance. All trades should consider the gremlins launch, recovery and supportability segments, including unique concepts for deployability, reliability, maintenance, and logistics. The trades should fully explore innovative approaches to the operational concept and evaluate the battlespace management and logistical requirements for employing gremlins in a realistic operational environment. Mission effectiveness and affordability are also important drivers in the trade studies. A challenge will be to determine the niche or “sweet spot” that produces the optimum blend of mission effectiveness and affordability. Any air vehicle survivability features should be balanced against cost and the mission effectiveness of the collective (volley) employment of gremlins. The utility of survivability features under this model is expected to be very different from the conventional single-vehicle employment model.

The Government is interested in the process and substantiation for the trades, which are just as important as the results of the trades. DARPA is seeking the most affordable and effective solution for meeting the Gremlins program objectives and seeks to understand the trade space and sensitivities. If the system does not fully meet the objectives, the performer should provide rationale for these deviations and how the system still meets the Gremlins program vision. It is anticipated that the Phase I trade studies will inform the evolution and refinement of the Table 1 metrics for subsequent phases.

2. Technology Maturation Plan

The performer shall develop a TMP to provide the Government with the fiscal and technical information necessary to support Phase II/III program planning. The TMP will define the team’s overall approach to mitigating risk and maturing their GOS design. The TMP should define the risk reduction, technology and process development and maturation, and operational evaluation activities that must be conducted to validate the ability to achieve the performer’s GOS design. The plan will also address rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost and schedule for these activities, as well as identify any external government research and development (R&D) activities that are critical to maturing the GDS. The TMP should explicitly address the following:

Risk management process Risk assessment results

Critical technologies and system attributes identified Risk reduction activities

Major risk reduction events and activities defined, including success metrics Phase II/III program plan

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Rough Order of Magnitude cost

The TMP will provide an integrated basis for all risk reduction activities that will be performed during Phases II and III, culminating in a GDS launch and recovery demonstration at the end of Phase III. The TMP should: 1) identify and assess critical technologies and system attributes that constitute the major technical and system integration risks on the program; 2) identify major risk reduction tests and demonstrations required to validate the ability to achieve GOS performance goals, culminating with a GDS demonstration in Phase III; and 3) define credible intermediate performance objectives (success criteria) associated with each of these critical tests and demonstrations.

3. Gremlins Demonstration System conceptual design & requirements development

The performer shall derive a GDS conceptual design with clear traceability to the GOS.

DARPA envisions significant commonality between the GOS and GDS, with any differences driven largely by affordability, timeline, and technology constraints imposed by the Gremlins program. Within programmatic constraints, performers should structure their demonstration system concept to retire or reduce the greatest technical risks associated with their GOS concept. The goal of this task is to design an affordable and compelling Phase III demonstration system that validates critical technologies and system attributes derived from objective system design requirements. It is expected that the GDS will be of similar (or identical) physical scale to the GOS and exploit a similar flight envelope for launch and recovery. Performers should explore innovative, low-cost demonstration approaches. DARPA envisions rapid prototyping best practices, including significant hardware and software content re-use in the demonstration system in order to maximize leveraging of existing, proven systems. For example, a GDS may re-purpose existing propulsion systems, command and control systems, vehicle management systems, actuators, or airframe components, as appropriate.

In DARPA’s vision, the GDS would, at a minimum, demonstrate the ability to recover at least four gremlins within 30 minutes onto a C-130 platform. Additional functionality and capability demonstrations are desired and will be dictated by the performer’s unique TMP and schedule/cost constraints. Ultimately, the performer is tasked with developing an affordable GDS design and demonstration approach that best validates critical enabling technologies, has traceability to the GOS, and provides potential users with confidence and interest in acquiring the system. This task will culminate in a System Requirements Review (SRR) for the complete GDS.

E. Phase I Schedule and Deliverables

The major Phase I deliverables and schedule are shown in Figure 3. The objective of the quarterly reviews will be to assess progress, provide feedback, and stay abreast of any emerging technical, cost or schedule issues. DARPA will staff a team of subject matter experts from Government and support contractors to attend program reviews. The team will provide feedback to the Program Manager. In addition to formal program reviews, regular teleconferences are encouraged to enhance communications with the Government team.

Figure 3. Phase I Schedule and Deliverables

To successfully achieve the Phase I objectives and to ensure consistency among performers, DARPA has developed a minimum list of deliverables that must be included in the proposer’s Phase I program. The desired content at each review is described below.

Kick-off Meeting

A kick-off meeting will be held at a Washington, DC area facility arranged by DARPA.

Other reviews shall alternate between a Government site and a performer site. The objective of this meeting will be to discuss the performer’s approach to the program and provide feedback to guide the performer in executing their Phase I program. It is expected that topics of discussion will include the performer’s point of departure GOS concepts and

Kickoff Meeting

Review #1 3 Months after

Award (MAA)

• GOS Initial Design

Review

• Initial results of design, mission effectiveness, affordability and operational concept trades

• Initial risk assessment and demonstration system concepts

Final Report

Review #2

6 MAA

• GOS Conceptual Design Review

• Documented trades and design

• Recovery analysis

• Operational

Concept briefing

• Initial TMP

• Initial GDS design

• Initial Phase II/III

Program Plan

Review #3

9 MAA

• GDS Conceptual Design

• GDS System Reqts Review

• Final TMP

• Final Phase II/III

Program Plan

• GOS Design Update

• Operational

Concept briefing update

Phase I – Gremlins Concept Definition architecture as well as a review of the mission effectiveness and affordability methodologies and analysis approach. The Government and the performer will also establish the program review schedule as well as a schedule of interim informal interactions, including routine management and technical telecoms.

Review #1 – Within Three MAA

The intent of this review is to provide the Government with a detailed “heading check” on the performer’s program approach and progress and have an opportunity to provide additional guidance before major deliverables are finalized. The focus of the first design review will be on the performer’s initial GOS conceptual design. The performer shall provide in-depth discussion of the design, mission effectiveness, operational concepts, and affordability trades that led them to their selected conceptual design. This discussion should also describe the performer’s progress towards achieving the Phase I success metrics described in Section F below. The performer shall provide an initial Operational Concepts briefing detailing all aspects of system operations. The performer shall also provide a risk assessment of their proposed concept, identifying both high risk enabling technologies and major risk reduction activities that they believe are required to validate performance and system capabilities. Additionally, the performer shall provide their initial design concepts for the GDS. The Government intends to collaborate with performers to jointly identify the most cost effective demonstration approaches so the Government can begin Phase II/III planning. At this review, the Government desires to have discussions on the merits and costs of potential demonstration approaches as well as required government assets, test support, facilities and other infrastructure.

Review #2 – Within Six MAA

At the second review, performers should have a complete GOS conceptual design and should have performed analysis and simulation activity at an appropriate level of fidelity to substantiate their design. GOS top-level performance capabilities should be fully defined. Relationships between all major system components (air vehicle, mission control system, and external infrastructure) should be complete. Subsystem performance requirements should be defined in sufficient detail to substantiate system performance capabilities. The design, mission effectiveness, operational concepts and affordability trade studies should be fully documented. The performer shall present their completed Operational Concepts briefing. By this review, the performer will also have begun shifting focus to the GDS.

The performer shall provide an initial Technology Maturation Plan that defines their overall approach to mitigating risk and maturing the critical enabling technologies for their GOS via the GDS demonstration and supporting Phase II and III activities. The TMP should address the performer’s risk management process. The plan should address all activities planned for Phases II and III and will specifically address the individual risk mitigation plans associated with each of the performer’s critical enabling technologies. The TMP should also include a set of risk mitigation plans (typically represented as waterfalls). These risk mitigation plans will detail the series of simulations, component tests, demonstrations, and any off-program activities that illustrate the progressive risk reduction across the program phases for each critical enabling technology. The plans will define each specific risk reduction activity, when it will occur, how much risk reduction will be achieved, ownership of the activity (i.e., the performer or other government agency), and what contingency or fallback approaches are planned to ensure program success. The activities comprising these individual risk plans will be integrated into a master demonstration schedule to illustrate dependencies and the progressive build-up of GDS capability. The risk mitigation plans should sufficiently outline the activities required to reduce the risk of all critical technologies and complete launch and recovery testing by the end of Phase III.

For each critical enabling technology, the TMP will also include numerical performance threshold metrics for key parameters associated with GDS design and performance attributes. The intent of this requirement is to provide confidence that sufficient performance is being achieved in the demonstrations to enable the GOS and identify areas where additional risk reduction or alternative approaches are required. It is not expected that the TMP will be fully defined at Review #2, but, at a minimum, all of the major risk reduction activities should be identified and a top-level integrated demonstration schedule should be complete. The TMP will be finalized at Review #3 and will be refined throughout the program based on emerging results from Phase II and III activities.

The performer shall also provide an initial conceptual design of their GDS. The GDS design should include the air vehicle, launch and recovery systems, host aircraft modifications, and any unique resources (equipment, facilities, etc.) needed to support Phase II/III activities. At a minimum, the GDS should be able to demonstrate the ability to recover at least four gremlins within 30 minutes. This design should clearly be derived from the GOS and be focused on resolving the key technology challenges associated with a future operational Gremlins System. The performer should describe the flight test demonstration capabilities of their GDS and address the unique issues associated with airborne launch and recovery testing. The performer shall provide a top-level GDS demonstration schedule. This schedule should include relevant risk reduction events detailed in the TMP, as well as major milestones such as Critical Design Review, Flight Test Readiness Review, and First Flight.

Lastly, based on the performer’s initial TMP and GDS, the performer shall provide an updated Phase II/III program plan, including updated ROM cost and schedule.

Review #3 – Within Nine MAA

At the third review, the focus of the program will be on the GDS design, risk reduction, and demonstration plans. The performer shall present their final GDS conceptual design and conduct a System Requirements Review. All aspects of the GDS system should be fully defined. Traceability from the GDS requirements to the relevant attributes of the GOS should be addressed. The SRR should also address all of the requirements necessary to conduct the demonstrations defined in the TMP. The SRR should describe the system requirements for the GDS, launch and recovery system, host aircraft modifications, and supportability system (including common and peculiar support equipment) that will be developed to meet the program demonstration objectives. The assessment should indicate how all critical and enabling technologies are to be addressed during Phase II/III. The performer shall also provide a complete and final TMP as described above and an updated Phase II/III program plan, including ROM cost and schedule. If needed, the performer will provide an updated GOS design and Operational Concepts brief based on any action items or new information since Review #2.

Final Report – Suggested at 10 MAA

The performer shall provide a final report documenting all Phase I activities.

F. Phase I Success Metrics

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed solutions in achieving program objectives, DARPA has established Phase I success metrics. These metrics will support the Government’s decision to continue the program into Phase II.. The Government has identified these metrics with the intention of bounding the scope of the effort while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in developing proposed solutions. The Government has defined the following minimum success metrics for Phase I:

Closed conceptual design of a GOS that best meets the objective system metrics provided in Table 1, including substantiating analysis.

Completed GDS SRR with traceability to the GOS.

Evidence that the GDS design is feasible in terms of both demonstration plan and technical approach.

o Executable demonstration plan, budget and schedule justified by activity breakdown structure.

o Technical approach justified by objective system analysis and modeling effort.

o TMP incorporates all risk reduction activities required to meet Phase II and

III objectives with reasonable scope, risk, cost, and schedule metrics, including interim critical demonstration milestones.

o Initial schedule and ROM costing is aligned with program budget and schedule objectives.

G. Phase II and Phase III Objectives

Although this BAA solicits firm proposals for Phase I only, the Phase I proposal shall include a preliminary Phase II and III program plan, schedule, and rough order of magnitude (ROM) program cost to facilitate DARPA's understanding of the scope of the proposed effort. It is understood that these will be anticipatory and preliminary in quality.

See Technical Proposal Instructions, Section 2.5 for additional details.

Should the Government decide to pursue Phase II, the Government will provide proposal guidance to Phase I performers towards the end of Phase I and request Phase I performers to update and expand their technical and cost proposals for the Phase II effort to include detailed tasks, costs, schedules for Phase II and an updated program plan, schedule, and ROM for Phase III. The Government may award the Phase II work to all, some, one, or none of the Phase I performers.

In Phase II, the selected performers will begin execution of the TMP. The performer will conduct additional analyses, laboratory, and/or field demonstrations of major subsystems, scaled models, or technology elements to provide sufficient confidence in the ability of the performer to achieve the flight demonstration objectives of Phase III. For example, refined analysis paired with a wind tunnel or other test may be used to incrementally reduce risk.

The performer will develop a preliminary design for their GDS, participate in a tailored PDR, and update the risk assessment and TMP for Phase III. The program will proceed to Phase III after the Government’s determination that the preliminary design and risk reduction results confirm the viability of the Phase III demonstration.

Should the Government decide to pursue Phase III, based on funding availability and Phase II performance, the Government will make a request to only Phase II performers to update and expand their technical and cost proposals for the Phase III effort, including detailed tasks, costs, and schedules. The Government may award the Phase III work to all, some, one or none of the Phase II performers.

The primary Phase III objective will be to conduct GDS detailed design, fabrication, and integration, including individual gremlins flight vehicles, host aircraft modification kit, support infrastructure, and test system command and control. The performer will continue to execute their TMP, including GDS ground and flight testing and culminating in compelling full-scale demonstrations that validate the GOS capability to meet performance metrics.

For risk reduction activity in Phase II/III that requires flight testing, the proposer should specify the preferred/desired source(s) of host aircraft (e.g., commercial lease) and the procedures by which they contemplate achieving airworthiness approval. DARPA is willing to consider alternative approaches to airworthiness approval, including retaining authority for such, to further program objectives.

Participation and submission of proposals for Phase II and Phase III is optional and associated proposal preparation costs will not be reimbursed under Phase I or Phase II awards. Evaluation of the Phase II and III proposals will be conducted through a scientific review process and will be based on evaluation criteria consistent with the Phase I evaluation criteria and specified in future proposal guidance.

Proposers should note that the above paragraphs reflect the Government’s current plan.

II. Award Information A. Awards

Multiple awards are anticipated for Phase I. For Phase II and Phase III, the number of awards will be based on funding availability. 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. 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 provide requested additional information in a timely manner. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees.

DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

B. 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 either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the contractor to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to 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 subcontractor may be conducting fundamental research. In those cases, it is the prime contractor’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subcontractor’s effort is 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 subcontractors, 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 subcontractor proposals for Fundamental Research, papers resulting from unclassified 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, e-mail and phone. Allow four weeks for processing; due dates under four weeks require a justification. Unusual electronic file formats may require additional processing time.