ACES_DARPA-BAA-16-19_Amendment_1_final_for_posting_11MAR16.pdf

DARPA-BAA-16-19

Broad Agency Announcement Atomic Clock with Enhanced Stability (ACES)

Microsystems Technology Office

January 21, 2016

(Amendment No. 01: As amended through 11 March 2016)

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

Sec. I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background and Description B. Program Objective, Structure & Milestones

1. Technical Area 1: ACES Clock Development

2. Technical Area 2: Related Studies C. Deliverables D. Government Furnished Equipment

Sec. II. Award Information Fundamental Research

Sec. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and

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

3. Collaborative Efforts

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

1. Proprietary Information

2. Security Information

3. Abstract Format

4. Full Proposal Format

5. Submission Information

a. Abstract Submission Information

b. Proposal Submission Information

6. Submission Dates and Times

7. Funding Restrictions

8. Other Submission Requirements

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

Sec. VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. Human Subjects Research

3. Animal Use

4. Export Control

5. Subcontracting

6. Electronic and Information Technology

7. Employment Eligibility Verification

8. Additional Requirement and Responsibilities relating to Alleged Crimes by or against Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan

9. System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements

10. Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

11. Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters

12. Representations by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law

13. Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Notices and Certification

14. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

15. Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information

16. Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Representation and Certifications

2. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

3. i-Edison

Sec. VII. Agency Contacts

Sec. VIII. Other Information A. Intellectual Property Procurement Contract Proposers

1. Noncommercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)

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

(Technical Data and Computer Software) C. All Proposers – Patents D. All Proposers – Intellectual Property Representations

E. Other Transactions (OTs):

F. Proposers Day

ATTACHMENT 1: Proposer Checklist ATTACHMENT 2: Proposal Summary Slide Template

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title – Atomic Clock with Enhanced Stability (ACES)

Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number – DARPA-BAA-16-19

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

Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time) o Posting Date: January 21, 2016 o Proposers Day: February 1, 2016 o Abstract Due Date: March 1, 2016 o FAQ Submission Deadline: April 22, 2016 o Proposal Due Date: April 29, 2016 o Estimated period of performance start: September, 2016

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The DARPA Microsystems Technology Office is soliciting research proposals for the development of high stability timekeeping instruments with suitably low size, weight, and power (SWaP) to enable widespread deployment in battery-powered portable applications.

Anticipated Funding Available for Award: $50M

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Anticipated funding type - 6.2

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

Agency contact Dr. Robert Lutwak, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: DARPA-BAA-16-19@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA-16-19

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE LOWERED

AND/OR PROPOSALS REJECTED IF PROPOSAL PREPARATION (PROPOSAL FORMAT,

CONTENT, ETC.) AND/OR SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED.

THOSE INTENDING TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR AN ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENT

(GRANT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT) ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO READ

THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED AT SECTION IV(B)(4) REGARDING THE TIME

REQUIRED TO RECEIVE VALIDATION OF SUBMISSIONS MADE THROUGH

GRANTS.GOV. PROPOSALS THAT ARE VALIDATED AFTER THE PROPOSAL DUE

DATE/TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED LATE AND, AS SUCH, WILL NOT BE REVIEWED.

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

Sec. I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 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 and Chapter 1, Subchapter C of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 22 - Department of Defense Grant and Agreement Regulations (DoDGARs), Award and Administration. Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA (including DoDGARS Part 22 for Grants and Cooperative Agreements). 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/, and, as applicable, the Grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

The DARPA Microsystems Technology Office is soliciting research proposals for the development of high stability timekeeping instruments with suitably low size, weight, and power (SWaP) to enable widespread deployment in battery-powered portable applications. 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.

A. Background and Description

Precision timing and synchronization is essential to DoD communications, navigation, reconnaissance, and other electronic systems. The requirements for timing precision and stability have grown increasingly demanding as systems have evolved towards higher data rates, increased spectrum congestion, and time-dependent encryption algorithms. This demand will continue to grow over the next decade, particularly due to emerging requirements for precision timing in GPS-denied environments and synchronization between system-of-systems components on distributed platforms.

In general, precise timing for DoD tactical systems is provided by Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which provide a relatively low size, weight, and power (SWaP) local timing source that is directly traceable to the DoD Master Clock. The local GPS receiver is typically augmented by a local timing reference (clock) in order to provide improved short-term stability (clean up) and flywheel operation (holdover) between relatively noisy and potentially intermittent GPS readings. Depending on platform application requirements, deployed local tactical clocks necessitate a trade-off between performance and size, weight, and power (SWaP), ranging from low-cost, low-SWaP, mechanical oscillators to relatively high-cost, high-SWaP atomic clocks.

The Atomic Clock with Enhanced Stability (ACES) program will provide unprecedented frequency and timing accuracy on low SWaP platforms. Of particular interest are portable battery-powered clocks, which require minimal time for calibration after power-on and which maintain accurate time and frequency over extended duration in relevant DoD operating environments. Existing battery-powered timing sources limit the mission application space of electronic systems due to power-on to power-on frequency changes (“retrace”) and due to long-term frequency aging and frequency sensitivity to temperature (“tempco”). Today, the best battery-powered clocks, developed under the DARPA Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC) program, provide 100X superior performance to mechanical oscillators of comparable SWaP.

Nonetheless, they require 6-12 hours of calibration after turn-on, due to retrace error, and support limited mission durations of 3-6 hours, due to tempco and aging. With the proliferation of CSACs among DoD systems suppliers, it is evident that even greater opportunities for advanced capabilities will be enabled by a battery-powered atomic clock with enhanced stability. Of particular value are clocks with significantly reduced temperature coefficient of frequency (“tempco”), long-term frequency variation (“aging”), and frequency repeatability under power cycling (“retrace”).

Tempco, aging, and retrace are the primary performance limitations of conventional CSACs.

These limitations result from the fundamental device architecture, specifically CW laser interrogation of microwave transitions of buffer-gas confined atoms. Variations in the laser spectrum and vapor cell characteristics over temperature and time, as well as power cycling, lead to variations in the measured atomic transition frequencies, which impart instability to the clock frequency and timing accuracy. Alternative approaches to atomic confinement and interrogation, which are less subject to these perturbations, are well-known and have been demonstrated in laboratory-scale and high-SWaP industrial instruments. These include, but are not limited to, laser-cooled and magneto-optically trapped atomic samples, RF-trapped ion samples, as well as interrogation of less environmentally-sensitive microwave and optical transitions. The objective of the Atomic Clock with Enhanced Stability (ACES) program is to leverage these modern atomic physics techniques to develop portable, battery-powered atomic clocks with stability, repeatability, and environmental sensitivity approaching that of laboratory-grade cesium beam frequency standards. This will be accomplished through research, development, and integration of reduced SWaP components and technologies for advanced atomic physics interrogation techniques.

B. Program Objective, Structure & Milestones

The ACES objective is to develop an atomic clock demonstrating enhanced stability within stringent SWaP requirements. The program consists of three phases including proof of concept, physics integration, and clock integration. Quantitative and progressive measurements, milestones, and deliverables in each phase will assess progress towards achieving the final program objectives.

DARPA seeks innovative proposals in the following two Technical Areas (TA):

Technical Area One: Develop a complete integrated ACES prototype atomic clock capable of meeting or exceeding the technical objectives of the program. Program deliverables will include fully integrated prototype hardware for independent government evaluation.

Technical Area Two: Fundamental research into alternative atomic clock architectures, component technologies, and interrogation methodologies. In general, these are expected to address innovative approaches and technologies that are too risky or immature to include on the critical path of a TA-1 development effort, but which might be incorporated into TA-1 development, following proof-of-concept, in later phases of the program. Program deliverables are expected to consist primarily of technical reports.

Individual proposals may address only one TA.

1. Technical Area 1: ACES Clock Development

The ACES TA-1 program schedule comprises an 18-month base period (Phase 1) followed by two 12-month option periods (Phases 2 and 3), for a total of 42 months, subject to demonstration of technical progress and availability of funds.

It is expected that the proposed ACES device will be logically separable into three major subsystems:

(1) Top-level packaging and power conditioning,

(2) Electronics and control software, and

(3) Physics package, which includes all vacuum, photonics, thermal control, and shielding.

Phases 1 and 2 will focus on physics package development, with resources expended on packaging and electronics only when necessary to support test and verification of physics package performance. Where necessary for risk reduction, and if technically substantiated, advance development of specific electronic components may be considered prior to Phase 3.

All successful proposals will provide measureable, quantitative milestones at the conclusion of each phase. ACES TA-1 metrics are defined in Table 1 and below. Proposals should provide technical rationale for meeting or exceeding each milestone and a clear trajectory to achieving the program metrics in each phase.

Table 1: ACES TA-1 Metrics by Phase Phase 1

Proof-of-concept Phase 2

Integrated Physics Phase 3

Integrated Clock Notes

Volume N/A 30 cm3 50 cm3 Phase 2: Physics package Phase 3: Complete clock

Power 250 mW 250 mW 250 mW Phase 1: Physics components Phase 2: Physics package Phase 3: Complete clock

Instability 1 10 / / 1 10 / / 1 10 / / Phase 1: 1 s < t < 100 s Phase 2: 1 s < t < 10,000 s Phase 3: 1 s < t < 100,000 s

Frequency Aging

N/A 10 / 10 /

Retrace ∆ 10 ∆ 10 ∆ 10 (on/off/on, 4/24/4 hours)

Temperature Sensitivity (tempco)

N/A 10 /° 10 /° (-40°C to +85°C)

Acceleration Sensitivity

N/A 10 / 10 / +/- 1 g in any direction

Magnetic Sensitivity

N/A 10 / 10 / +/- 1 gauss in any direction

Frequency Output

10 MHz 10 MHz 10 MHz 3.3V CMOS or clipped-sine

Operating Temperature

N/A -40C to +85C -40C to +85C Ambient environment Rate < 5C/minute

Phase 1: Base Period (18 months)

ACES Phase 1 will demonstrate clock functionality in a laboratory setting meeting the instability (Allan deviation) and retrace metrics as indicated in Table 1. The physics package may consist of separated components, representative of those to be integrated in subsequent phases, in a laboratory (optical table) configuration. The power metric reflects the total consumption of all physics package components (P=Vi*Ii), including all vacuum and photonics components, as well as any necessary thermal control. Power conditioning and controlling electronics are not included in the power consumption metric of this phase. The distributed physics package volume is not considered in this phase, though component selection and development should be consistent with the integration and volume metrics of subsequent phases.

Phase 2: Option 1 (12 months)

ACES Phase 2 will develop and demonstrate an integrated physics package meeting the performance and SWaP metrics of Table 1, and including all vacuum, photonic, and thermal control components, as well as any required magnetic shielding. The volume of the physics package will be computed as the product of the maximum extent along three major axes. The power consumption will include the sum (P=Vi*Ii) of all electronic interfaces to the physics package. The physics package will be sufficiently rugged and compact to allow for temperature and acceleration testing as indicated in Table 1. Frequency aging will be measured over a minimum 30-day measurement interval. The performer will support transportation and test of one physics package, along with suitably portable control electronics, at a government testing facility, as directed by DARPA, one month prior to the conclusion of Phase 2.

Phase 3: Option 2 (12 months)

ACES Phase 3 will demonstrate a fully integrated clock comprising all control electronics, power conditioning, and packaging, meeting all of the performance metrics of Table 1. Phase 3 prototype clocks should require only a single external power source and will provide a 10.0 MHz clock output. Power consumption will be determined by P = V * I of the power input and volume will be computed as the product of the maximum extent along three major axes. Two complete prototype clocks will be delivered to a government testing facility, as directed by DARPA, at the conclusion of Phase 3.

2. Technical Area 2: Related Studies

The ACES TA-2 program schedule comprises a 12-month base period (Phase 1), followed by two 12-month option periods (Phases 2 and 3), subject to demonstration of technical progress and availability of funds.

Successful TA-2 proposals will address an innovative approach to atomic clock interrogation or architecture or novel component technology relevant to the development of high-performance low-SWaP ACES clocks. While no TA-1 proposal is permitted to be explicitly dependent on a TA-2 effort, it is expected that TA-2 efforts may demonstrate risk reduction methodologies or components for integration into TA-1 efforts in later phases of the program. The proposal should clearly state the objective of the research effort and provide a contextual description of its value to the ACES program. The proposal should describe a clear path to achieving the proposed objective, an assessment of risk and methodology for risk reduction, and to include quantitative intermediate and final milestones to assess the technical success of the effort. Considering the basic research objective of TA-2, the total budget for a TA-2 proposal may not exceed $1.5M.

C. Deliverables

TA-1 Proposals should include a detailed schedule of hardware deliverables for independent government evaluation throughout the program. Proposers are especially encouraged to define test articles and deliverables that provide benchmarks and indicate progress against the highest risk elements of their approach. The required minimum deliverables are described below.

Phase 1: A breadboard atomic clock meeting Phase 1 metrics from Table 1 will be demonstrated in a laboratory setting by month 17 of Phase 1. A report containing experimental validation of compliance with the proposed performance metrics will be provided to the government and the performer will support onsite validation of experimental results by government personnel.

Phase 2: An integrated physics package meeting Phase 2 metrics from Table 1 will be demonstrated in a laboratory setting by month 11 of Phase 2. A report containing experimental validation of compliance with the program performance metrics (Table 1) will be provided to the government. Following acceptance of the performance data report, the performer will transport and support testing of a brassboard atomic clock, consisting of an integrated physics package and portable electronics, at an approved government test facility for evaluation against the proposed performance metrics.

Phase 3: The Performer will develop, fabricate, and test a fully-packaged atomic clock, meeting the Phase 3 metrics from Table 1. A report containing experimental validation of compliance with the proposed performance metrics will be provided to the government by the end of Phase

3. Following acceptance of the performance data report, the performer will deliver two prototype ACES to the government.

For both TA-1 and TA-2, deliverables in each phase include quarterly technical and financial reports, support for quarterly reviews either onsite or via teleconference, attendance and support to semi-annual program reviews, and a final report at the end of each phase.

D. Government Furnished Equipment

Concurrent with the ACES program, the government will develop high-efficiency narrow-linewidth distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser sources and optical isolators at the 780 nm wavelength, for possible application in ACES TA-1 development efforts that employ the D2 transition of atomic rubidium. It is expected that prototype devices will be available in month 12 of Phase-1 of the ACES program and that a second iteration of the devices, if necessary, will be available in month 8 of Phase-2. Target specifications for these devices are in Table 2 and Table 3, below.

Table 2: Target performance objectives for GFE DBR lasers Wavelength 780 nm Output power >15 mW Operating Temperature 85 C Wall‐plug efficiency >30 %

Table 3: Target performance objectives for GFE optical isolators Center wavelength 780 nm Isolation >30 dB Transmission >70 % Volume <0.5 cm3

Proposals intending to employ these GFE components should indicate the number of each component required in each phase of the program as well as desired dates for delivery.

Sec. II. Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation, and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work at the end of one or more of the phases.

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see section labeled “Application Review Information,” Sec. V.), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications. The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, 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. Proposers are advised that if they propose grants or 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.

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 fundamental research. In those cases, it is the prime contractor’s responsibility to explain in its proposal why its subawardee’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 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 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, 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 public_release_center@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/work-with-us/contract-management/public-release.”

Sec. III. Eligibility Information

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

A. Eligible Applicants

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’s 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 and Government entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

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., for any Other Transactions under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371). Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

3. Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are strongly encouraged.

Sec. IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

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

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104), and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, during the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support contractors for administrative purposes and/or to assist with technical evaluation. All DARPA support contractors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing DARPA-sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

Submissions will not be returned. The original of each submission received will be retained at DARPA and all other non-required copies destroyed. A certification of destruction may be requested, provided the formal request is received at this office within 5 days after notification that a proposal was not selected.

1. Proprietary Information

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. Submissions containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such information clearly marked with a label such as “Proprietary” or “Company Proprietary.” Note, “Confidential” is a classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary business information.

2. Security Information

DARPA anticipates that submissions received under this BAA will be unclassified. However, should a proposer wish to submit classified information, an unclassified email must be sent to the BAA mailbox requesting submission instructions from the Technical Office PSO.

Security classification guidance and direction via a Security Classification Guide (SCG) and/or DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” will not be provided at this time, since DARPA is soliciting ideas only. If a determination is made that the award instrument may result in access to classified information, a SCG and/or DD Form 254 will be issued by DARPA and attached as part of the award.

3. Abstract Format

Abstracts should follow the format and outline provided below in this section. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT” and the total length should not exceed 12 pages, excluding cover page. All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables and charts. The page limitation for Abstracts includes all figures, tables, and charts. No formal transmittal letter is required. All Abstracts must be written in English.

DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea. 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. 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.

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (DARPA-BAA-16-19);

(2) Technical Area (TA-1 or TA-2);

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

ORGANIZATION”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED ORGANIZATION”, “OTHER

SMALL ORGANIZATION”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR

“OTHER NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(10) Funds requested from DARPA, by Phase and Total, and the amount of cost share (if any); AND

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(Note: An official transmittal letter is not required when submitting a Proposal Abstract.)

Section II. Abstract Details

A. Summary of innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the Abstract and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to current state-of-art alternate approaches.

B. Metrics and Deliverables associated with the proposed research. This section must include a table of proposed milestones and metrics for each phase, using Table 1 as a template.

C. Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims, metrics, and deliverables. While a detailed performance and power budget is not expected in the Abstract, key challenges to these metrics should be discussed along with an outline of required technology development and/or partnering arrangements.

D. General discussion of related research in this area as well as previous accomplishments of the team members which substantiate the practicality and feasibility of the proposed development effort.

E. Description of the proposing team and teaming arrangement with particular emphasis on how the team provides the necessary expertise, facilities, and experience to accomplish the technical objectives of the proposed development effort.

4. Full Proposal Format

All full proposals must follow the format and the outline provided below in this section.

Proposals shall consist of two volumes: Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal, and Volume II – Cost Proposal. All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables and charts. Section II of Volume I shall not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. Volume I may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished) that document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers may be included with the submission. The bibliography and attached papers are not included in the page count.

Submission of other supporting materials along with proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. All full proposals must be written in English.

A summary slide of the proposed effort, in PowerPoint format, should be submitted with the proposal. A template slide is provided as Attachment 2 to the BAA. Submit this PowerPoint file in addition to Volumes I and II of your full proposal. This summary slide does not count towards the total page count.

a. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (DARPA-BAA-16-19);

(2) Technical Area (TA-1 or TA-2);

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

ORGANIZATION”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED ORGANIZATION”, “OTHER

SMALL ORGANIZATION”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR

“OTHER NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(10) Funds requested from DARPA, by Phase and Total, and the amount of cost share (if any); AND

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

B. Official transmittal letter.

Section II. Detailed Proposal Information

A. Statement of Work (SOW) - In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. The SOW must not include proprietary information. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

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

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

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

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

6. Identify whether government-furnished equipment is requested (see I.D) and, if so, the required quantity and delivery schedule;

7. Clearly identify any Risk Reduction tasks (see II.D, below); AND

8. Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (prime or subcontracted) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university.

Note: It is required that the SOW be developed so that each Phase of the program is separately defined.

B. Summary of innovative claims for the proposed research - Succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to current state-of-art alternate approaches.

C. Detailed technical approach – This is the centerpiece of the proposal and should provide a detailed description of the proposed technology, analysis and modeling, where available, to substantiate the innovative claims of Section II.B. This section must include a proposed table of milestones and performance objectives, by Phase, similar to Table 1 of this BAA.

Proposals should clearly explain the technical approach that will be employed to meet or exceed each program metric and provide ample justification as to why the approach is feasible. Where applicable, analysis should include concise performance budget tables, e.g.

for contributory error or power budget elements.

D. Risk analysis and mitigation plan – Identify the major technical and programmatic risks in the program. Include a risk matrix. For each risk, assign a probability of occurrence on a scale of 1-10, where 10 indicates a high likelihood that the risk will impact program success, as well as an assessment of impact, also on a scale of 1-10, where 10 indicates that this risk would maximally limit the program from delivering prototypes on schedule or meeting performance objectives. For each item with total risk (likelihood × impact) exceeding 40, include a plan for mitigating the risk and assessing risk reduction.

Where necessary, parallel Risk Reduction tasks may be proposed, e.g. concurrent development of redundant techniques or components. Note, however, that the Proposal must identify the primary technical path and that Risk Reduction tasks should be uniquely identified in the SOW and separately costed as Optional Tasks in Volume II of the Proposal.

E. Schedule and milestones – Include a high-level schedule of major technical tasks and measureable milestones by phase. As a minimum the schedule should include each SOW task of Section II.A. Where Risk Reduction tasks are proposed, the schedule must include a milestone for assessment and downselection between redundant tasks.

F. Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path beyond the proposed program. This should also address mitigation of life cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section VIII. “Intellectual Property.”

G. Comparison with other ongoing research, either internal or external to the proposing organization, indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

H. Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas. In this section also include any ongoing research projects or pending proposal activity which technically overlaps with the proposed effort, including funding source, administrative point of contact, and the program management plan for combining and deconflicting the efforts.

I. Management plan and key personnel - Include teaming arrangements and organization chart for the proposed effort. Identify key personnel who will contribute to the proposed effort and the level of effort expected for each individual in each Phase of the proposed effort. Include brief biographies of key personnel.

J. Test plan – describe how compliance with the proposed metrics and milestones will be demonstrated in each phase of the program.

K. Description of the facilities and equipment that would be used for the proposed effort. Where necessary, indicate gaps in available resources, particularly for specialized testing, and present a mitigation strategy and schedule for obtaining access to the required resources.

Section III. Additional Information

Information in this section may include a brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers may be included in the submission.

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

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (DARPA-BAA-16-19);

(2) Technical Area (TA-1 or TA-2);

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

ORGANIZATION”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED ORGANIZATION”, “OTHER

SMALL ORGANIZATION”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR

“OTHER NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

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

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

(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s), if any, by calendar year and by government fiscal year;

(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

(14) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract

Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

(15) Date proposal was prepared;

(16) DUNS number;

(17) TIN number;

(18) CAGE Code;

(19) Subcontractor Information;

(20) Proposal validity period; AND

(21) Any Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, other such approved rate information, or such documentation that may assist in expediting negotiations (if available).

Attachment 1, the Cost Volume Proposer Checklist, must be included with the coversheet of the Cost Proposal.

Proposers, other than universities, without an accounting system considered adequate for determining accurate costs must complete an SF 1408 if a cost type contract is to be negotiated.

To facilitate this process, proposers should complete the SF 1408 found at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778 and submit the completed form with the proposal. To complete the form, check the boxes on the second page, then provide a narrative explanation of your accounting system to supplement the checklist on page one. For more information, please see http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_system_adequacy_checklist.html.

The proposers,’ to include eligible FFRDCs’, cost volume shall provide cost and pricing information (See Note 1), or other than cost or pricing information if the total price is under $750,000, in sufficient detail to substantiate the program price proposed…