DARPA-BAA-16-38.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Accelerated Computation for Efficient Scientific Simulation

(ACCESS)

Defense Sciences Office

DARPA-BAA-16-38

May 6, 2016

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 2

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

A. Awards B. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Appendix 1: Sample Candidate Benchmarking Problems

ATTACHMENTS – Mandatory Templates

Attachment 1: Proposal Template Slides o Slide 1: Executive Summary o Slide 2: Concept o Slide 3: Cost Summary by Category o Slide 4: Cost Summary by Task

Attachment 2: Proposal Template – Milestones and Deliverables Summary Table Attachment 3: Proposal Template – Technical and Management Volume Attachment 4: Proposal Template – Cost Volume Attachment 5: Proposal Template – Administrative and National Policy Requirements

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 3

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title: Accelerated Computation for Efficient Scientific Simulation (ACCESS)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: DARPA-BAA-16-38

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

Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time.)

o Posting Date: May 6, 2016 o Abstract Due Date: May 20, 2016, 4:00 p.m.

o FAQ Submission Deadline: June 21, 2016, 4:00 p.m. See Section VIII.A.

o Full Proposal Due Date: June 28, 2016, 4:00 p.m.

Anticipated Funding Available for Award: DARPA anticipates multiple awards, each less than $1 million.

Types of Instruments that May be Awarded: Procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or other transactions

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

DARPA/DSO

ATTN: DARPA-BAA-16-38

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 o DARPA/DSO Solicitation Website: http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities

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

mailto:ACCESS@darpa.mil http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?tFilter=&oFilter=2&sort=name

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 4

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This Broad Agency Announcement (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 (or 32 CFR 22 for grants and cooperative agreements). Any amendments to this BAA will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (http://www.fbo.gov/) and, as applicable, the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov/).

A. Introduction

The Defense Sciences Office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting research proposals in technologies for the acceleration of scientific simulations of physical systems characterized by coupled partial differential equations (PDEs). The Accelerated Computation for Efficient Scientific Simulation (ACCESS) Program seeks innovative ideas for computational architectures that will achieve the equivalent of petaflops performance in a benchtop form-factor and be capable of what traditional architectures would define as “strong” scaling for predictive scientific simulations of interest. DARPA expects achieving these goals will require the parallel development of non-traditional component technologies exploiting novel hybrid analog/digital techniques, algorithms, instruction sets, controllers, and the integration and optimization of these components within prototype systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

Many problems in plasma physics and fluid systems are governed by long-range forces, local interactions, and non-linear phenomena that span many dimensions and timescales and require multiple coupled non-linear PDEs to be adequately modeled. Extreme examples include high energy density z-pinch1,2 and tokamak3,4 plasma systems that require fully kinetic models to resolve the desired physics over time and spatial scales spanning orders of magnitude. The ultimate goal of the ACCESS program is to demonstrate new specialized benchtop technology that can solve large problems in these kinds of complex physical systems on the hour timescale, compared to normal computational methods that require full cluster-scale supercomputing resources on the weeks-to-months timescale. The demonstration of such novel prototypes may provide foundational technologies for specialized scientific computing systems beyond Moore’s law and could transform how scientific simulations are used for both design and discovery of complex physical systems.

Program Scope

The design and development of the desired prototypes are envisioned to leverage advances in

1 Liberman, Michael A., et al. Physics of high-density Z-pinch plasmas. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

2 Schmidt, A., et al. "Fully kinetic simulations of megajoule-scale dense plasma focus." Physics of Plasmas (1994-present) 21.10 (2014): 102703.

3 Wesson, John. "Tokamaks (The international series of monographs on physics). 4th Ed." (2011).

4 Bonoli, Paul and McInnis, Lois C. Report of the Workshop on Integrated Simulations for Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences. 2015.

http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 5

optics, MEMS, additive manufacturing, and other emerging technologies to develop new non-traditional analog and digital computational means and to overcome some of the current known limitations of these means, such as precision and stability. Of particular interest are hybrid analog/digital architectures that replace numerical methods and memory-intensive computational parallelization with nonlinear and/or intrinsically parallel physical processes to perform computations. Other novel approaches are also of interest to DARPA if they can achieve the desired capability. Specifically excluded are black-box solvers which require prohibitively large sets of training data and fail to generalize well to outside parameter regimes.

It is expected that there will be a tradeoff between the generalizability of the computational means and the acceleration expected versus classical computers. For example, an approach that computes using direct physical analogy to the system of interest may be unsuitable for any other application. On the other hand, a digital co-processor that accelerates the calculation of exponential functions will have wide applicability for scientific computation but may not meaningfully accelerate communications-limited simulations. Proposals should explain these sensitivities in detail within the context of the chosen benchmarking problems and their physical systems.

To assess the technical potential for these approaches to achieve equivalent “petaflops-on-benchtop” performance, the ACCESS program is focused on enabling technologies for the demonstration of end-to-end simulations of proposer-defined benchmarking problems within plasma and fluid physical systems. Proposers must choose a physical system to model and apply their technical approach to at least one benchmarking problem. Candidate benchmarking problems in these physical systems are discussed further below and in detail in Appendix 1.

ACCESS program results could lead to follow-on efforts culminating in an integrated end-to-end prototype system.

Program Structure and Proposal Guidance

This BAA is soliciting proposals for a 15-month exploratory phase, primarily focused on the definition of prototype system architectures and demonstration of key component technologies against exemplar benchmarking problems within plasma and fluid systems. Additionally, proposers are required to submit a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost proposal as well as a top level Statement of Work (SOW) and schedule to describe the proposer’s vision of how such a prototype system could notionally be achieved within 30 months of the end of the program’s 15-month period of performance.

It is expected that new computational substrates, novel problem decompositions, and exotic system architectures may be required to meet the aggressive program goals. The proposal narrative should clearly explain the research and development required to achieve the ACCESS goals and how the proposed work will revolutionize the state-of-the-art (SOA) in terms of both the overall fundamental computational approach and its application to acceleration of scientific simulation and simulation of the chosen physical system in particular. Proposals should clearly describe the physical system and the corresponding PDEs that the proposed system addresses and discuss the projected capability and limitations of the proposed system to address other systems and classes of PDEs. How does the proposed work overcome the traditional limits of

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 6

computation associated with both data transfer to the processor and the cost of performing floating point operations on that data?

Performers must ultimately demonstrate any prototype system on benchmarking problems and compare computational results to existing SOA solvers. Performance will be assessed along several dimensions, including speed, accuracy, precision, and scalability. The chosen problem will thus provide context in the proposal for discussing the proposed system’s expected end-goal performance relative to SOA computing architectures and solver performance and their limitations for solving these problems. Within the problem context, proposers should state clearly how their system concept will ultimately achieve the equivalent of petaflops performance in a benchtop form-factor for these classes of problems as well as the potential limitations to generality. Proposals should also identify the highest development, integration, and scaling risks involved, ordered from highest to lowest, and clearly describe how those risks are mitigated early in the proposed effort.

Proposers should clearly state what will be developed and demonstrated by the end of the 15-month period of performance with respect to the chosen benchmarking problem and physical system. Proposers are thus required to clearly articulate proposer-defined quantitative metrics and why achieving those metrics meaningfully demonstrates feasibility and reduces risk of the proposed novel components and system architecture. Proposers should clearly describe their testing plans for the proposed technologies and the associated metrics. For example, if the highest-risk component of the proposed architecture is a coprocessor dedicated to accelerating the solution of Maxwell’s equations, then the proposal might include metrics for that coprocessor involving the throughput necessary, such that the complete architecture will be able to solve full-scale instances of the chosen problem in the projected amount of time. The testing plan for that coprocessor might then include using that coprocessor for electromagnetic calculations relevant to the chosen problem and demonstrating the required throughput. In other cases, it might be possible to show feasibility by demonstrating full solutions to the chosen benchmarking problem but at an intermediate level of performance compared with the expected end-goal performance;

proposers should then use that level of performance as their metric.

Proposals will be evaluated on the projected ability of the proposed component technologies and system approaches to meet ultimate ACCESS system goals. A top level SOW (including a schedule) and ROM describing the costs and efforts that could be pursued in a notional 30-month follow-on prototype development effort (i.e., the construction and demonstration of an integrated prototype system) is therefore required in the proposal. Proposals that do not include the required top level SOW and ROM for the notional 30-month effort may be deemed non-conforming. For example, a proposal that focuses on the component development of a rapid Fourier transform solver, but does not discuss that solver in the context of the chosen problem and an overall architecture that can move data rapidly into that component would be deemed non-conforming.

While teaming arrangements are not required for selection, DARPA expects collaboration will be necessary in order to achieve ACCESS system goals, given the multiple technological advances and expertise required, as well as the short time frame of the program. Proposals must clearly describe prior and ongoing efforts that will be leveraged for the proposed work and

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 7

identify any dependencies on current or anticipated research and commercial developments.

Exemplar Physical Systems and Candidate Benchmarking Problems

The following describes the recommended plasma and fluid exemplar systems and relevant candidate benchmarking problems within those systems that may be used to help demonstrate ACCESS goals. Physical systems and benchmarking problems other than the samples provided may be proposed, but must be fully justified in the context of how they enable the demonstration of the desired transformative capability for predictive scientific simulations.

Many problems in plasma physics and fluid dynamics are governed by complex, long-range and locally interacting, and non-linear phenomena. These problems tend to be particularly resistant to algorithmic- or software-based acceleration and are difficult to parallelize. Due to the large number of DoD-relevant applications in multiple plasma and fluid regimes, and the difficulty of observing the rapidly-evolving and transient states in their dynamics, there is a particular need for simulation as a design and discovery modality. These physical systems are thus suited for use in demonstrating transformational computational approaches and are the basis for the example benchmarking problems provided in this solicitation.

Though “simulation difficulty” is very sensitive to problem specification, coupled, fully-kinetic and electromagnetic simulations of dynamic plasma systems represent many of the most difficult challenges facing scientific simulation. Preference will be given to performers who can effectively address this capability with techniques that are scalable to multiple dimensions in both real- and velocity-space, as required by the problem, without the large penalties associated with the current computational paradigm.

The four candidate plasma problems below satisfy the criteria of a relevant and complex benchmarking problem. The details of each benchmark and a summary of typical SOA performance using an implicit hybrid electromagnetic (EM) particle-in-cell (PIC) code is provided in Appendix 1. The specific problem parameters and benchmarks provided were compiled at the ~10 teraflops level using conventional hardware and are intended to provide reference for starting comparisons between SOA and novel ACCESS systems. The parameters of the problems, such as spatial size and resolution, are readily adaptable for effective testing at the petaflops level as progress is made. The implicit methods used for the benchmarks effectively show some of the scaling limitations of current approaches; explicit methods typically have improved scalability but conversely require significantly more processing power due to the much smaller time-steps usually needed.

1) Magnetic Rayleigh-Taylor instability in a two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic system (fluid)

2) Plasma shock tube (fluid)

3) Two-stream instability in a one-dimensional, counter streaming plasma (kinetic)

4) Landau Damping (kinetic)

The first two of these problems only require treatment of the plasma as an electromagnetically charged fluid and therefore certain plasma fluid approximations (e.g. averaging over the velocity

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 8

space) are permitted. The sample benchmarks provided are typical of SOA hybrid EM PIC codes and for these two problems the provided benchmarks will be approximately an order of magnitude slower than purely SOA plasma fluid codes; this feature highlights the inability of most current codes to transition between kinetic and pure fluid models without penalty. Non-plasma, fluid-only versions of the first two problems are acceptable only if proposers provide their own SOA benchmarking and scaling data. Reference publications containing these data must be attached as an appendix to the proposal. The remaining problems are kinetic in nature and therefore provide a platform for beginning demonstrations of desired new computational systems that can handle kinetic and fluid regimes seamlessly.

Proposers may select one (or more) of the above example problems as their nominal ACCESS problem. Physical systems and benchmarking problems other than the sample ones provided in this solicitation may be proposed as candidate demonstration simulations, but must be fully justified in context of how they enable the demonstration of transformative capability. Parties choosing to exercise this option are expected to provide their own SOA benchmark computational results. Proposers should provide a copy of any references used for these benchmarks in the appendix of the proposal. The proposed alternative problem will be evaluated for acceptability and alignment with ACCESS program goals. Proposals that do not include a benchmarking problem focused on predictive simulation of a physical system or discussion of the proposed technical approaches and metrics within the framework described above may be deemed non-conforming.

Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables

The ACCESS program is intended to run for 15 months. Proposers must specify the research and technology development schedule for the 15-month period of performance as well as a top level schedule for a notional 30-month prototype development effort. For the 15-month program effort, proposals must include a detailed schedule that incorporates deliverables and milestones and is consistent with the technical maturity and development status of the proposed approaches.

A target start date of October 2016 may be assumed for planning purposes. DARPA will synchronize schedules across performers and revise as necessary throughout the program.

One Principal Investigator (PI) meeting will be held at the start of the program. Proposers should be prepared to support at least one site visit by DARPA during the course of the program and to visit DARPA once during the period of performance for review. The locations for meetings and other events will be specified by the Government. In addition, regular teleconference meetings will be scheduled with the Government team for progress reporting and issue identification and mitigation. Teleconferences will be held on a schedule deemed appropriate by the Government;

performers are expected to present technical content such as slides or other media as appropriate.

A written report is also expected to be submitted concurrent with the teleconference, which will communicate programmatic information, such as risk items and mitigations, schedule progress, and financial status. A template for the written report will be provided.

Deliverables

All performers will be required to provide the following deliverables:

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 9

Written reports, submitted concurrent with the teleconferences Quarterly technical reports describing progress made, resources expended, and any issues requiring the attention of the Government team to be provided within ten days after the end of the quarter

Intermediate and final versions of design documents and software as requested A final report concisely summarizing the effort conducted.

II. Award Information A. Awards

Multiple awards are anticipated. The level of funding for individual awards made under this solicitation has not been predetermined and will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds, but is not anticipated to exceed $1 million for any individual award.

Awards under this solicitation will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous and provide best value to the Government, all factors considered, including the potential contributions of the proposed work, overall funding strategy, and availability of funding. See Section V for further information.

The Government reserves the right to:

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

make awards without discussions with proposers;

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

segregate portions of resulting awards into pre-priced options;

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

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

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

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

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. Proposers are advised that regardless of the instrument type proposed, DARPA personnel, in consultation with the Government contracting officer, may select other award instruments, as they deem 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

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 10

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 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

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 11

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.”

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

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

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

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions: (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector; and (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and their compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’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 mailto:public_release_center@darpa.mil

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 12

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.

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

B. Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest

Current federal employees are prohibited from participating in particular matters involving conflicting financial, employment, and representational interests (18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, and 208). Once the proposals have been received, and prior to the start of proposal evaluations, the Government will assess potential conflicts of interest and will promptly notify the proposer if any appear to exist. The Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the proposer’s responsibility to give full notice and planned mitigation for all potential organizational conflicts, as discussed below.

Without prior approval or a waiver from the DARPA Director, in accordance with FAR 9.503, a contractor cannot simultaneously provide scientific, engineering, technical assistance (SETA) or similar support and also be a technical performer. As part of the proposal submission, all members of the proposed team (prime proposers, proposed subawardees, and consultants) must affirm whether they (their organizations and individual team members) are providing SETA or similar support to any DARPA technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must state which office(s) the proposer, subawardees, consultant, or individual supports and identify the prime contract number(s). All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. The disclosure must include a description of the action the proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. If in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, a proposal fails to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest and/or any identified conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

If a prospective proposer believes a conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the proposer should send his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict via email to the BAA email address before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan.

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

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 13

10 U.S.C. § 2371).

IV. Application and Submission Information Prior to submitting a full proposal, proposers are required to first submit an abstract as described below. This process allows a proposer to ascertain whether the proposed concept is: (1) applicable to the ACCESS BAA and (2) currently of interest. For the purposes of this BAA, applicability is defined as follows:

The proposed concept is relevant to the technical areas described herein.

The proposed concept investigates an innovative approach that enables revolutionary advances, i.e., will not primarily result in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

The proposed work has not already been completed (i.e., the research element is complete but manufacturing/fabrication funds are required).

The proposer has not already received funding or a positive funding decision for the proposed concept (whether from DARPA or another Government agency).

Abstracts and full proposals that are not found to be applicable to the ACCESS BAA as defined above may be deemed non-conforming5 and removed from consideration. All abstracts and full proposals must provide sufficient information to assess the validity/feasibility of their claims as well as comply with the requirements outlined herein for submission formatting, content and transmission to DARPA. Abstracts and full proposals that fail to do so may be deemed non-conforming and removed from consideration. Proposers will be notified of non-conforming determinations via letter.

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

B. Content and Form of Application Submission All submissions must be written in English and all pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with 1-inch margins and font size not smaller than 11 point. Font sizes of 8 or 10 point may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Document files must be in .pdf, .ppt, .pptx, .odx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats as described below. Various templates have been provided as attachments to the BAA posted at http://www.fbo.gov/. Use of these templates is mandatory for all submissions to this BAA. Do not replicate or mimic any of these templates using personal or organizational letterhead or formatting (except as directed in the section descriptions) or submit documents as un-editable image or otherwise flattened files.

5 “Conforming” is defined as having been submitted in accordance with the requirements outlined herein.

http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 14

Complete submission packages are defined as follows:

Abstracts consist of one document file.

Proposals consist of the following files, described in Section IV.B.2 below:

o Volume 1 - Technical and Management Volume: one document file (Attachment

3) including the Milestone and Deliverables Summary table (Attachment 2), PowerPoint slides for the Executive Summary, Concept, and Cost Summaries (Attachment 1), and Administrative and National Policy Requirements (Attachment 5);

o Volume 2 - Cost Volume: one document file (Attachment 4) plus an Excel spreadsheet and, if applicable, any proprietary subcontractor cost proposals that may be submitted separately (as outlined in Attachment 4)

1. Abstract Information Proposers are required to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out of scope proposal.

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 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.

While it is DARPA policy to attempt to reply to abstracts within thirty calendar days, proposers to this solicitation may anticipate a response within approximately two weeks.

Abstracts must not be submitted to DARPA via email. See Section IV.E.1.a. for abstract submission instructions.

a. Abstract Format Abstracts shall not exceed a maximum of 10 pages. The page limit includes all figures, tables, and charts; the cover sheet, bibliographies, references, and (optional) official transmittal letter are not included.

Abstracts must include the following components:

i. Cover Sheet: Provide the following information:

(1) Label: “Abstract”

(2) BAA number (DARPA-BAA-16-38)

(3) Abstract title

(4) Lead organization name

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

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

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 15

(7) Estimated total cost

(8) Estimated period of performance

(9) Primary subcontractors (if known/applicable)

(10) Identify any other solicitation(s) to which this concept has been proposed

ii. Goals and Impact: Answer the following questions listed below. Be as quantitative as possible.

1. What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using no jargon.

2. What is the problem? Why is it hard?

3. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?

4. What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?

5. If you're successful, what difference will it make? What is the impact?

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

iv. Capabilities/Management Plan: Provide a brief summary of expertise of the team, including subcontractors and key personnel. Identify a principal investigator for the project and include a description of the team’s organization including roles and responsibilities.

Describe the organizational experience in this area, existing intellectual property required to complete the project, and any specialized facilities to be used as part of the project. List Government-furnished materials or data assumed to be available.

v. Cost and Schedule: Provide a cost estimate for resources (e.g., labor, materials) and any subcontractors over the proposed timeline of the project, broken down by Government fiscal year.

vi. Bibliography (Optional): If desired, include a brief bibliography with links to relevant papers, reports, or resumes of key team members.

2. Full Proposal Information All complete proposal packages must include the parts listed above in Section IV.B. The following templates, which contain proposal content descriptions and instructions, have been provided as attachments to the BAA posted at www.fbo.gov. Use of these templates is mandatory for all proposal submissions to this BAA.

Attachment 1: Proposal Template Slides o Slide 1: Executive Summary o Slide 2: Concept o Slide 3: Cost Summary by Category o Slide 4: Cost Summary by Task

Attachment 2: Proposal Template – Milestones and Deliverables Summary Table Attachment 3: Proposal Template – Technical and Management Volume

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 16

Attachment 4: Proposal Template – Cost Volume Attachment 5: Proposal Template – Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Proposals not meeting the format prescribed herein and in the Proposal Templates may be deemed non-conforming and removed from consideration.

3. Proprietary and Security Information DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104), and to only disclose their contents to authorized personnel. 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 of submission disposition.

a. 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.

b. Security Information Classified submissions shall be transmitted in accordance with the following guidance.

Additional information on the subjects discussed in this section may be found at http://www.dss.mil/.

If a submission contains Classified National Security Information as defined by Executive Order 13526, the information must be appropriately and conspicuously marked with the proposed classification level and declassification date. Similarly, when the classification of a submission is in question, the submission must be appropriately and conspicuously marked with the proposed classification level and declassification date. Submissions requiring DARPA to make a final classification determination shall be marked as follows:

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

Note: Classified submissions must indicate the classification level of not only the submitted materials, but also the classification level of the anticipated award.

http://www.dss.mil/

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 17

Proposers submitting classified information must have, or be able to obtain prior to contract award, cognizant security agency approved facilities, information systems, and appropriately cleared/eligible personnel to perform at the classification level proposed. All proposer personnel performing Information Assurance (IA)/Cybersecurity related duties on classified Information Systems shall meet the requirements set forth in DoD Manual 8570.01-M (Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program).

Proposers choosing to submit classified information from other collateral classified sources (i.e., sources other than DARPA) must ensure: (1) they have permission from an authorized individual at the cognizant Government agency (e.g., Contracting Officer, Program Manager); (2) the proposal is marked in accordance with the source Security Classification Guide (SCG) from which the material is derived; and (3) the source SCG is submitted along with the proposal.

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 DARPA/DSO Program Security Officer (PSO).

C. Submission Dates and Times All times listed herein are in Eastern Time. Proposers are warned that submission deadlines as outlined herein are strictly enforced. When planning their response to this solicitation, proposers should take into account that some parts of the submission process may take from one business day to one month to complete (e.g., registering for a DUNS number or TIN).

Note: Proposers submitting an abstract or full proposal via the DARPA BAA Submission site (https://baa.darpa.mil/), MUST click the “Finalize” button with sufficient time for the upload to complete prior to the deadline. Failure to do so will result in a late submission.

DARPA will acknowledge receipt of complete submissions (as defined in Section IV.B above) via email and assign identifying numbers that should be used in all further correspondence regarding those submissions. If no confirmation is received within two business days, please contact the BAA Administrator at ACCESS@darpa.mil to verify receipt.

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

1. Abstracts Abstracts must be submitted per the instructions outlined herein and received by DARPA no later than 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 2016. Abstracts received after this time and date may not be reviewed.

2. Full Proposals The full proposal package, including all applicable attachments and any proprietary https://baa.darpa.mil/ mailto:ACCESS@darpa.mil

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 18

subcontractor cost proposals, must be submitted per the instructions outlined herein and received by DARPA no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 28, 2016. Proposals received after this time and date may not be reviewed.

D. Funding Restrictions Not applicable.

E. Other Submission Requirements

1. Unclassified Submission Instructions

Proposers must submit all parts of their submission package using the same method; submissions cannot be sent in part by one method and in part by another method nor should duplicate submissions be sent by multiple methods. Email submissions will not be accepted.

a. Abstracts DARPA/DSO will employ an electronic upload submission system (https://baa.darpa.mil/) for all UNCLASSIFIED abstracts sent in response to this solicitation. Abstracts must not be submitted via Grants.gov.

First time users of the DARPA BAA Submission website must complete a two-step account creation process. The first step consists of registering for an extranet account by going to the URL listed above and selecting the “Account Request” link. Upon completion of the online form, proposers will receive two separate emails; one will contain a user name and the second will provide a temporary password. Once both emails have been received, the second step requires proposers to go back to the submission website and log in using that user name and password. After accessing the extranet, proposers may then create a user account for the DARPA BAA Submission website by selecting the “Register your Organization” link at the top of the page. Once the user account is created, proposers will be able to see a list of solicitations open for submissions, view submission instructions, and upload/finalize their abstract.

Proposers who already have an account on the DARPA BAA Submission website may simply log in at https://baa.darpa.mil/, select this solicitation from the list of open DARPA solicitations and proceed with their abstract submission. Note: proposers who have created a DARPA BAA Submission website account to submit to another DARPA Technical Office’s solicitations do not need to create a new account to submit to this solicitation.

All abstracts submitted electronically through the DARPA BAA Submission website must meet the following requirements: (1) uploaded as a zip file (.zip or .zipx extension); (2) only contain the document(s) requested herein; (3) only contain unclassified information; and (4) must not exceed 100 MB in size. Only one zip file will be accepted per abstract; abstracts not uploaded as zip files will be rejected by DARPA.

Technical support for the DARPA BAA Submission website is available during regular business hours, Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Requests for technical support must

DARPA-BAA-16-38 ACCESS 19

be emailed to BAAT_Support@darpa.mil with a copy to ACCESS@darpa.mil. Questions regarding submission contents, format, deadlines, etc. should be emailed to ACCESS@darpa.mil. Questions/requests for support sent to any other email address may result in delayed/no response.

Since proposers may encounter heavy traffic on the web server, proposers should not wait until the day abstracts are due to request an account and/or upload the submission.

b. Proposals Requesting a Procurement Contract or Other Transaction Proposers requesting procurement contracts or other transactions may submit full proposals through ONE of the following methods: (1) direct mail/hand-carry; or (2) electronic upload (DARPA-preferred).

Direct Mail/Hand-carry:

Proposers electing to submit procurement contract or other transaction proposals via direct mail must provide one paper copy and one electronic copy on CD or DVD of the full proposal package. All parts of the proposal package must be mailed or hand-carried to the address noted in Section VII below.

Electronic Upload:

DARPA/DSO encourages proposers…