DARPA_PS-26-01 TBD2_Amendment 04_26NOV2025.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

Program Solicitation

Strategic Technology Office (STO)

Track at Big Distances with Track-Before-Detect

(TBD2)

DARPA-PS-26-01

AMENDMENT 04

26 NOVEMBER 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROGRAM INFORMATION

1.1. Background

1.2. Program Description/Scope

1.3. Acquisition Strategy

1.4. Program Structure

1.5. TBD2 Goals, Metrics, and Constraints

2. PS AUTHORITY

2.1. PS Procedure

3. GUIDELINES FOR ABSTRACTS, ORAL PRESENTATIONS, AND PROPOSALS

3.1. General Guidelines

3.2. Abstract Content

3.3. Abstracts – Process and Basis of Evaluation

3.4. Oral Presentation Content

3.5. Oral Presentations – Process and Basis of Evaluation

4. AWARDS

4.1. General Guidelines

4.2. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Controlled Technical Information (CTI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

4.3. Competition Sensitive Information

4.4. Intellectual Property / Data Rights

4.5. Former Procurement Integrity Act (PIA)

5. PS DEFINITIONS

6. ACRONYMS

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1: TBD2 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Guide ATTACHMENT 2: DARPA-PS-26-01 Questions and Answers V3

PROGRAM SOLICITATION OVERVIEW INFORMATION

• Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Strategic Technology Office (STO)

• Funding Opportunity Title – Track at Big Distances with Track-Before-Detect (TBD2)

• Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

• Funding Opportunity Number – DARPA-PS-26-01

• Dates - All times are Eastern Time Zone (ET) o Posting Date: October 30, 2025 o Proposer’s Day: November 4, 2025 o Questions Due Date: November 7, 2025, by 5:00 PM ET

Questions and Answers are provided as Attachment 2.

o Abstracts Due Date and Time: December 4, 2025, by 12:00 PM ET o Deadline to Request CUI Guide: November 21, 2025, by 12:00 PM ET o Oral Presentations Due Date and Time: By government request, estimated four weeks after abstract submission

• The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative approaches to address challenges in signal processing techniques for space situational awareness, specifically in cislunar space. This program specifically encourages submissions from teams composed of experts in signal processing, space situational awareness (SSA), and optical sensors/focal plane arrays (FPAs).

• Multiple awards are anticipated.

• Types of instruments that may be awarded – Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) for

Prototype

• Agency Contact

The Solicitation Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil

DARPA/STO

ATTN: DARPA-PS-26-01

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil

PROGRAM SOLICITATION

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

Track at Big Distances with Track-Before-Detect (TBD2)

1. PROGRAM INFORMATION

1.1. Background

The goal of the TBD2 program is to enable continuous space-based detection and tracking of objects in cislunar space on relevant timelines. This effort will increase the safety of cislunar commercial and civilian traffic contributing to the peaceful use of space for the benefit of all nations and enabling a sustainable space ecosystem. To accomplish this, TBD2 seeks to advance the state of the art for signal processing algorithms so that when combined with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or quasi-COTS optical sensors and/or focal plane arrays (FPAs), they can

a) detect and track faint objects at gigameter (Gm) distances, b) operate using available onboard processing capabilities, and c) do so on relevant timelines (within hours).

Existing space situational awareness (SSA) capabilities are primarily focused on objects in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) or closer. Extending SSA to cislunar space presents unique challenges as the distances are much greater and the volume of space needing to be scanned is ~1,200 times greater than GEO. Ground-based systems can combine large optics with complex, resource-intensive algorithms to enable cislunar detections, but are limited by their fixed location on the ground, inability to detect or track objects during hours of sunlight, and having to contend with weather and the Earth’s atmosphere. TBD2 seeks to solve this by moving the sensor to space, specifically to the Sun-Earth Lagrangian point 1 (SEL1) in order to negate any blinding of the sensor by the sun and enable a continuous view of most of cislunar space via a single sensor. To achieve this, TBD2 will require a novel approach to signal processing to detect faint objects (magnitude 23) at distances up to 2 Gigameter (Gm), while also minimizing processing time to the point that all cislunar space can be scanned within 12 hours. For a sensor at SEL1, sending image data to the ground for processing would require a continuous high-rate

Figure 1: TBD2 seeks to extend space situational awareness beyond GEO to cislunar space downlink that is impractical, if not infeasible, due to limitations in bandwidth, latency, energy budgets, and relative positions of the sensor and Earth. Therefore, TBD2 aims to develop or adapt signal processing algorithms that can be run in quasi-real time via onboard processing.

In addition to signal processing, TBD2 will also develop two distinct payload designs that optimize the combination of the signal processing with sensors/space-based compute platforms for two distinct scenarios: SEL1 and beyond GEO orbits. While SEL1 is of particular interest, alternate employment options could potentially enable a closer view of certain cislunar areas while also allowing for the detection and tracking of <1-meter objects that could endanger government, commercial or civil space operations.

TBD2 will have three final deliverables:

1. The low complexity algorithm software implementation

2. Two payload designs that include the optics/sensor and compute platform combinations to be used for:

a. placement in SEL1.

b. placement in beyond GEO/cislunar orbits.

If successful, TBD2 will improve early warning capabilities for defense and civilian agencies who track potential threats and objects of interest originating from or transiting cislunar space, contributing to the safe and peaceful use of space for all nations. The fully developed signal processing algorithms capable of meeting program metrics and program goals and payload designs approved through a design review constitute the Prototypes developed under the TBD2 Program.

This Program Solicitation (PS) calls specifically for abstracts to be submitted for TBD2 by date listed on page 3. TBD2 is a 15-month single-phase effort with two tasks. Task 1 is to reduce the computational needs (and associated power consumption) of signal processing algorithms needed to detect faint moving objects at distances of millions of kilometers (km), and Task 2 is to develop a payload design trade study that optimizes quasi-COTS sensors, onboard processors, and algorithms to achieve overall TBD2 goals. All abstracts must address both tasks, but only for the SEL1 employment scenario.

Abstracts will be reviewed by the government and, if selected, the proposer will be invited to provide an oral presentation. Oral presentations will be reviewed by the government and, if selected, may result in an award of an Other Transaction Award (OTA). This PS encourages solutions from all responsible sources capable of satisfying the government's needs, including large and small businesses, and non-traditional defense contractors as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 3014, and research institutions as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 638(e)(8).

1.2. Program Description/Scope

While many limitations of current approaches for cislunar SSA can be mitigated by placing sensors far from Earth (such as at SEL1), this introduces several technical challenges.

Primarily, detecting and tracking faint moving resident space objects (RSOs) of 1 meter from SEL1 requires sensitivity levels capable of detecting objects as faint as 23 visual magnitude.

Achieving such sensitivity with quasi-COTS optics/sensors requires carefully optimized signal processing algorithms, which would traditionally be run via terrestrial compute platforms.

One theoretical path to achieving high sensitivity is through long integration times, stacking hundreds or thousands of image frames to boost signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), but this approach introduces latency which undermines achieving detection within appropriate timelines. While current synthetic tracking and track-before-detect algorithms can theoretically reach these sensitivities, they are computationally expensive—requiring around 300 Trillion Floating-Point Operations Per Second (TFLOPs) (FP32) to operate effectively from SEL1 with limited SNR loss. Addressing this compute need without compromising performance is the main goal of the TBD2 program.

There are several algorithms, generally belonging to the Track-Before-Detect family of Algorithms (TBDAs), developed for or adapted to the detection of faint moving objects in deep space – including near-Earth asteroids, main belt asteroids, and cislunar RSOs. While some methods linearly scale with the number of frames, pixels, and motion hypotheses, alternative strategies may yield sublinear or logarithmic scaling in some dimensions. TBD2 encourages the development of such efficient architectures to enable quasi–real-time onboard detection capability while also maintaining adequate performance.

TBD2 actively encourages exploration of innovative techniques, including but not limited to:

• Coarse-to-fine search methods (e.g., motion-aware pyramidal stacking).

• Radon transforms and their efficient approximations such as the Fast discrete X-ray

Transform (FaXT).

• Probabilistic voting schemes to prune velocity hypothesis space over time.

• Techniques developed in the broader Infrared Search and Track (IRST) community combined with cislunar SSA algorithms to reduce complexity, e.g., exploiting their capability of treating hypothesized trajectories stochastically and pruning them early keeping complexity bounded, and their capability to operate at low SNR.

• Multi-sensor per platform designs, as multiple telescopes lower revisit time and reduce computational needs by reducing the number of pictures, shortening integration time, and reducing the number of hypothesized velocities.

DARPA is interested in the performance of TBD2 algorithms in several areas, and the government will provide data sets to test each of these areas individually as well as together.

Some of the data sets provided will be real data from an optical sensor, others will be partially synthetic (i.e., real data with fake moving objects added to the data), and others will be totally synthetic data sets.

Data sets will be provided to each performer for “practice” with their approach, while additional data sets will be used for evaluating the algorithms. In general, the number of data sets provided for "practice" will not be sufficient for training Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) algorithms, so AI/ML proposers are responsible for the training of their algorithms. If requested, the government team can provide guidance to each team on how to insert their own “fake” objects for training AI models. It is expected that, over the program period of performance, thousands of data cubes will be analyzed to collect performance statistics. The government has not finalized the data format yet, and the final data format may address discussions between selected performers and the government team.

At the midpoint and conclusion of the period of performance, performer algorithms will be evaluated on a government team-hosted platform to assess accuracy of detection and tracking of dim targets of various magnitudes and required computational power for quasi real-time execution. Each performer will need to provide an executable code that will be run on a common computer they will have access to. At the midpoint and final evaluations, approaches will be evaluated according to the program metrics (Section 1.5), but additional attributes will also be considered:

• Sensitivity vs. integration time tradeoffs.

• Peak TFLOPs and memory (gigabytes) required to store and process intermediate results.

• Astrometric accuracy (comparing output to limits imposed by optics, point spread function (PSF), and photon statistics; RSO velocity estimation accuracy, etc.).

• Weight and rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost of payload and bus.

In addition to the signal processing approaches, performers will be expected to develop two distinct payload designs: one for employment at SEL1, and another for employment in a beyond GEO/cislunar orbit. While SEL1 may be a good location to perform continuous cislunar SSA of ~1m sized RSOs, it is important to also explore additional options, such as orbits beyond GEO and around EMLs (Earth-Moon Lagrangians). These orbits offer closer views of the Moon and the Earth-Moon corridor thus allowing detection and tracking of smaller objects of magnitude 23 (10-20 cm at 200,000-400,000 km), as well as covering the remaining part of cislunar space that is obstructed from SEL1.

Four possible missions for the placements of a few TBD2 sensors include:

1. Monitoring the Earth-Moon corridor

2. Monitoring lunar orbits, including EML1 and EML2

3. Monitoring medium earth orbit (MEO)/GEO orbits

4. The small part of cislunar space that has an obstructed view from SEL1

The payload designs should suggest optimal optics and sensor, algorithm, and compute platform combinations for use at SEL1 and these additional orbits. Pursuing a single payload solution (optics and sensor plus compute platform combination) for the four cislunar missions identified above is strongly encouraged. These payload designs should consider aspects such as:

• Number of telescopes, optical aperture size, and sensor parameters

• SNR detection regimes (background-limited vs. read-noise-limited)

• Platform requirements for imaging at various integration times

• Required computational needs

• Consumed power

• Estimate of payload size, mass, power requirements

• Mass, power consumption, and ROM cost of payload and bus

For the payload design, factors such as payload mass and power consumption are of critical importance. For example, multi-sensor per platform designs are of interest as multiple telescopes reduce the number of pictures and shorten integration time, thus lowering revisit time and reducing the number of hypothesized velocities. Any proposed multi-telescope options would need to quantifiably justify the performance increase at the cost of mass and volume.

• The payload designs will be evaluated near the end of the 15-month period of performance via a payload design review with the government team. This design review will include examination and evaluation of the functional and performance requirements designed for the individual components (signal processing, computer platform, sensor) and overall payload of the two employment scenarios. The intent is that at the conclusion of the TBD2 program, the SRR-approved payload designs can be used to proceed with the initial system design by a transition partner. Expectations for the design review include, but are not limited to:

• Optical System Design o Optics selection, to include overall design, number of optics and configuration, aperture size, F#, field of view (FOV), and PSF o Optical throughout of the entire optical system o Note: baffle design is out of scope for TBD2 and will not be required.

• Detector Specifications o Quantum efficiency of the detector at relevant wavelengths o Read noise of the detector o Dark current specifications o Pixel size o Frame rate

• Compute Platform o Processing architecture, to include identification of field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), graphics processing units (GPUs), and/or central processing unit (CPU), and memory requirements.

o Software development environment, and how the platform can expand in the future to handle algorithm advancements

• Payload Design o Pointing accuracy and stability requirements o Thermal management o Mass, volume, and power budgets o Mission lifetime o Assembly, Integration, and Test (AIT) considerations

• Environmental Conditions and Risk Assessment o Characterization of the thermal, vacuum, and radiation environments at SEL1 and beyond GEO orbits o Identification of potential risks associated with each payload design o Mitigation plans for identified risks

• Concept of Operations o For the SEL1 employment, provide the orbital information and how this supports program goals o For the beyond GEO orbit employment, provide the number of satellites and approximate orbits, as well as the pointing locations of each sensor, and how this supports covering the identified areas of interest o Total integration time for each FOV and the expected limiting magnitude

• Cost Estimate o Rough order of magnitude (ROM) of components and each overall payload

• Metrics o How the two distinct payload designs will address program goals and metrics

(section 1.5)

Overall, at the completion of the 15-month period of performance for TBD2, the government’s expectation is to have prototypes of the fully developed signal processing algorithms capable of meeting program metrics and program goals and government-approved payload designs that can be used to proceed with initial system design by a transition partner. This will pave the way for designing and building the payload after the end of the program.

1.3. Acquisition Strategy

The government's aim is to lower the administrative burden of entry, reduce program risk, foster competition, and have performing teams get to work quickly. To facilitate this objective, the government will use the following acquisition process:

1. Abstracts: Through this solicitation, the government requests proposers to submit Abstracts (see Section 3.2) in response to TBD2. The government will review all submitted abstracts for technical comprehension and ability (see Section 3.3). Selected proposers will be invited to provide an oral presentation (see Section 3.4) to the government.

2. Oral Presentations: Upon the government's request, proposers will have the opportunity to present their proposal to the DARPA program team. The government will review all oral presentations (see Section 3.4) and anticipates that selected proposers may be awarded an agreement with a 15-month period of performance to reduce the computational needs of signal processing algorithms and develop the designs for potential spacecraft payloads that utilize TBD2 algorithms.

3. TBD2 program execution (15 months): Performers will develop algorithms with low computational needs which will be benchmarked on government provided imagery and develop two (2) payload designs for sensor placement options that achieve TBD2 goals.

The anticipated timeline, which includes major milestones for the acquisition strategy laid out above, is illustrated in Figure 2:

Figure 2: TBD2 acquisition strategy timeline

The process and requirements for abstract and oral submissions are detailed in Section 2.1 of this PS. Complete descriptions of the TBD2 program objectives and structure are provided within the PS to give proposers as much context as possible to inform abstract and oral submissions.

1.4. Program Structure

As shown in Figure 3, TBD2 is a single-phase program spanning 15 months across two tasks within a single technical area.

Figure 3: TBD2 has two tasks under a single technical area, spanning 15 months.

The first task is to develop the signal processing algorithms necessary for cislunar SSA that can meet TBD2 goals for sensitivity, revisit time, power consumption, probability of detection, and false alarm rate (see Section 1.5 for TBD2 metrics). The second task, which will be executed in parallel with the first task, is a payload design trade study by mid-point, with a government led design review near month 14. The payload design will look at how to develop a TBD2 payload that can meet program metrics. This includes the sensor, algorithm, and processor combination for a single asset placed at SEL1, and additional sensors placed in a beyond-GEO orbit to cover the additional mission areas as stated in Section 1.2.

During the 15-month program, tasks will be evaluated at midpoint and near completion. Midterm signal processing algorithm evaluations will assess progress toward program metrics (Section

Program Kickoff

Midterm evaluation

Task 2: Payload design trade study

Task 1: Track-Before-Detect algorithms

Final Evaluation And SRR

TBD2

15 months

1.5). Performers will identify challenges and present updated plans. Maturity expectations include a functional prototype runnable on the Government platform, compared against synthetic and real-world data. Demonstratable progress towards sensitivity, revisit time, probability of detection, and false alarm rate; as well as improved computational efficiency near space-qualified compute levels will be required. The midpoint payload design evaluation will be an in-progress review of the approach, challenges, risks, and plan for the design review. Performers will need to show a clear path to achieving program goals for sensitivity, revisit time, and onboard processing efficiency for the two distinct employment scenarios that will be formally evaluated during design review.

1.5. TBD2 Goals, Metrics, and Constraints

The objective of TBD2 is to enable continued space-based detection and tracking of objects in cislunar space within appropriate revisit timelines, thereby increasing the safety of cislunar commercial and civilian traffic and contributing to the peaceful use of space for all nations. The proposed concept is to place optical sensor(s) beyond GEO and use algorithms with reduced computational needs that run on available onboard processing to achieve this, and the program metrics are focused on key parameters for achieving space situational awareness. This includes metrics for detection range and sensitivity, revisit times, and onboard processing power consumption, combined with the ability to achieve positive detections while minimizing the chance of false detections.

Metric Name Single Phase

M1 Mag-Range/Size 23 or better (1 m @ 2 Gm, 0.1 m @ 0.2 Gm)

M2 Revisit time <12 hours for single asset at SEL1

M3 Max power consumption

(T) 600 W; (O) 300 W

M4 Probability of Detection >95%

M5 Probability of False Alarm

<1%

In addition to the metrics, several constraints are provided in order to guide proposer solutions.

The first constraint is that performers should assume a value of 20% albedo or less (i.e. assume no more than 20% of light is reflected from the RSO’s surface) for all potential RSOs. The second is to have performers assume that their processing time must be equal or less than the integration time when developing their payload trade studies. The third constraint limits any proposed optical aperture to a maximum diameter of 0.5 meters.

Constraints

Processing time <= total integration time

Albedo: <=20%

Optics aperture size <= 0.5 m diameter

2. PS AUTHORITY

This PS may result in the award of an OTA for Prototype Projects, which can include not only commercially available technologies fueled by commercial or strategic investment but also concept demonstrations, pilots, and agile development activities that can incrementally improve commercial technologies, existing government-owned capabilities, and/or concepts for broad defense and/or public application(s). The government reserves the right to award an OTA for Prototypes under 10 U.S.C. § 4022 or make no award at all. In all cases, the Government Agreements Officer (AO) shall have sole discretion to negotiate all agreement terms and conditions with selected proposers. The OTA will not require cost-sharing unless the proposer is a traditional defense contractor who is not working with a non-traditional defense contractor participating in the program to a significant extent.

2.1. PS Procedure

In response to this solicitation, proposers are asked to submit a 4-page abstract as described in Section 3.2. This process allows DARPA to ascertain (1) whether the proposers understand the key challenges of the TBD2 program and (2) whether they are capable of executing a proposed concept. Specific evaluation criteria used to make the assessment can be found in Section 3.3.

Selected Abstract Proposers may be invited to participate in an oral presentation to DARPA, as described in Section 3.4, where the proposed technical solution will be evaluated. Specific evaluation criteria used to make the assessment can be found in Section 3.5. After the oral presentations, DARPA will make a determination as to which proposers are selected to participate in the program. The government will not pay proposers responding to this PS for the costs associated with abstract submissions or oral presentations.

Abstracts (result, if successful: an invitation to participate in oral presentations) Classification: Up to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Abstracts shall be submitted as specified in Section 3 of this PS. The government will evaluate abstracts against the criteria stated in this PS. Abstracts shall be submitted up to CUI level. See Section 3.1 for more information on how to request the CUI Guide.

It is important to note that proposers must submit an Abstract(s) in response to this solicitation to be considered for participation in the TBD2 program. Proposers will not be invited to provide an oral presentation or be included in any further progression of the program without participating in the abstract Phase of the solicitation.

Oral presentations (result if successful: Phase 1 Award 15-month Period of Performance) Classification: Up to CUI Proposers responding to this PS may be invited to further explain their proposed approach and solution via an oral presentation. Oral presentations will take place approximately four weeks after notification from the government that an oral presentation is requested. Additional instructions (to include, but not limited to, content, due date, and presentation date/time) will be provided within the official invitation to participate in oral presentations. For planning purposes, the anticipated contents of the oral presentation are provided in Section 3.4 of this PS, and proposers can expect to present this content should they be invited to provide an oral presentation.

Awards DARPA will review oral presentations to determine which proposed solutions sufficiently meet the evaluation criteria stated in Section 3.5. Upon favorable review, and subject to the availability of funds and negotiations, the government may award an OTA for Prototypes under 10 U.S.C. §4022.

3. GUIDELINES FOR ABSTRACTS, ORAL PRESENTATIONS, AND

PROPOSALS

3.1. General Guidelines

a. Do not include elaborate brochures or marketing materials; only include information relevant to the submission requirements or evaluation criteria.

b. Use of a diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essence of the proposed solution is permitted.

c. All abstracts, oral presentations, and proposal documentation shall be no higher than

CUI.

d. The program CUI Guide, at the CUI level, will be provided upon request. Please send an email to DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil to request the SCG and a DOD SAFE link will be provided to download the SCG. Please identify your Cage Code in the CUI Guide request. The Abstract content must be marked in accordance with the CUI Guide.

e. 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.

f. Questions can be sent to DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil by the due date on page 3.

g. University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers (FFRDCs), and government laboratories are prohibited from proposing as performers. UARCs, FFRDCs, and government laboratories interested in this solicitation may contact the Agency Contact listed in the Program Solicitation Overview Information section to discuss potential participation as part of the government team.

h. All abstracts and proposals (up to the CUI level) sent in response to this PS may be submitted via DARPA's BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil). Note: If an account has already been created for the DARPA BAA Website, this account may be reused. If no account currently exists for the DARPA BAA Website, visit the website to complete the two-step registration process. Submitters will need to register for an Extranet account (via the form at the URL listed above) and wait for two separate e-mails containing a mailto:%20DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil https://baa.darpa.mil/ username and temporary password. After accessing the Extranet, submitters may then create an account for the DARPA BAA website (via the "Register your Organization" link along the left side of the homepage), view submission instructions, and upload/finalize the proposal. Proposers using the DARPA BAA Website may encounter heavy traffic on the submission deadline date; proposers should start this process as early as possible.

All documentation submitted electronically through DARPA’s BAA Website must be uploaded as zip files (.zip or .zipx extension). The final zip file should be no greater than 50 MB in size. Only one zip file will be accepted per submission, and submissions not uploaded as zip files will be rejected by DARPA. Technical support for DARPA's BAA Website may be reached at BAAT_Support@darpa.mil, and is typically available during regular business hours (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Eastern Time).

i. Submissions sent through other mediums, channels, or after the prescribed PS deadline will not be considered, reviewed, or evaluated.

j. Proposers providing Abstracts that are not invited to an oral presentation will be notified in writing as soon as practical.

3.2. Abstract Content

a. Abstracts should not exceed four (4) single-sided written pages using 12-point

Times New Roman font with 1" margins all around. For CUI Abstracts, the CUI cover page will not count against the page limit. Any citations must be included on a separate page and will not count against the page limit.

b. Abstracts must include the following:

1. Title page: Proposer Name, Title, Date, Point of Contact Name, E-Mail Address, Phone, and Address. (The Title Page does not count against page limits).

• The proposer shall include a statement that no people on the proposer's team works for DARPA as a Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS), or similar support services, as DARPA has a policy prohibiting such people from working as a technical performer. Include this statement on the title page. The title page will NOT count as part of the four (4) written pages limit.

2. Technical Understanding: Provide a summary of the technical problem the TBD2 program seeks to solve. This summary shall be stated in the proposer's own words without any "copy and paste" of this solicitation. The goal is for the proposer to demonstrate a clear understanding of TBD2's purpose and goals. The summary is included in the four (4) page limit.

3. Technology Approach and Challenges: Identify the overall proposed technical approach and the specific technical challenges toward achieving TBD2 goals.

Explain how the proposed solution may address these challenges and whether such solutions have been already implemented for cislunar SSA or have been adapted from other applications. The proposer should include what they think the primary risks are to the successful development of the TBD2 program. Proposers should briefly describe the technology readiness level (TRL) of their solution, the type of mailto:BAAT_Support@darpa.mil compute platform used (number of CPU cores, number of FPGAs/GPUs, memory or else), whether any results have been published/reported and where, and if applicable give examples including sensitivity, false positives, detection and astrometric accuracy, data sets used, etc. The technical approach only needs to address the SEL1 employment option for Tasks 1 and 2; the non-SEL1 employment options will need to be addressed in the oral proposal presentation (if invited by the government.) This is included in the four (4) page limit.

4. Technical Ability: Detail why the proposer believes their team and organization have the ability to be successful at achieving the TBD2 program goals. The proposer may include relevant past experience, organizational capabilities, team members' or subcontractor qualifications, or anything else that demonstrates competence in designing and contributing to the TBD2 system. The summary is included in the four (4) page limit.

3.3. Abstracts – Process and Basis of Evaluation

Abstract evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance. Individual abstracts will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria described below:

a. Technical Ability: The proposed technical approach is reasonable, feasible, and innovative. The proposers demonstrate an ability, if selected, to achieve the goals of the TBD2 program.

b. Technical Comprehension: The proposed technical understanding is accurate, and the key technical challenges and risks are identified, and a sound approach to address them is provided.

Abstracts will be evaluated by DARPA using the evaluation criteria listed above. The government will endeavor to complete the evaluation of abstracts within 10-12 business days of the closing of the submittal period. As stated above, proposers are required to submit an abstract for evaluation by DARPA to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an unsuccessful proposal. DARPA will respond to the 4-page abstract with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in a 1.5 hour (approximately 60 minutes presentation, 30 minutes question and answer period) oral proposal presentation. If DARPA is not interested in an oral proposal presentation, it will state this in an e-mail to the proposer.

Upon review of the abstracts, the government may elect to invite all, some, or none of the proposers to the oral presentations. Only abstract proposers invited by DARPA to participate in the oral proposal presentations are eligible to provide one.

3.4. Oral Proposal Presentation Content

If DARPA expresses interest in an oral proposal presentation, the proposer will be asked to provide further details on their proposed solution. Specific instructions (including, but not limited to, content submission guidelines) will be provided in the invitation to participate.

Additional technical details relevant to the TBD2 Program may also be provided in the invitation. If selected, proposers can expect to be asked to provide the following information (proposers can address them in any order they choose):

a. Company Introduction/Overview − Provide information regarding the company and key personnel dedicated to the program and how past performance and qualifications will contribute to the technical approach. Identify and explain efforts of similar scope and complexity.

b. Technical Approach − Provide a technical and quantitative description of the technical approach, to include:

1. A detailed description of the overall signal processing approach and what makes it unique compared to other known approaches.

2. An analysis of the proposer’s algorithm’s computational needs such as required

TFLOPs (specify FP8, FP16, or FP32) and memory.

3. The approach that will be followed to adapt the proposed algorithm to run on available space-qualified compute platforms. Describe what type of compute platform and capabilities will be needed to run the proposed algorithm. Will the algorithm require custom application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or special flight compute hardware that is beyond a small number of FPGAs or GPUs?

DARPA anticipates all performers will eventually run their algorithms on a government compute platform that will be representative of the capabilities of a flight compute platform.

4. Describe whether the proposed approach will be close to the theoretical limit of being able to detect a moving object in the same total integration time it would take to detect a stationary object (e.g., a star) of the same brightness. If possible, describe how close to this theoretical limit the proposed approach would achieve.

5. Provide details on whether the proposer’s algorithm has ever been used for SSA observations of RSOs? If so, give examples including sensitivity, false positives, detection and astrometric accuracy, data sets used, etc. If the algorithm hasn’t been applied to SSA/space situational awareness (SSA) of RSOs in space but has been applied to other applications, provide information on relevant performance and how it could be adapted to SSA.

6. For the payload designs, describe the planned approach, to include orbits and sensors under consideration for both employment scenarios (SEL1 and non-SEL1/beyond GEO orbits).

c. Teaming/subcontractors: Identify any teammates or subcontractors expected to comprise the team. Identify their roles, any key personnel, and how past performance and qualifications will contribute to the technical approach.

d. Data Rights: Identify any components of the proposed technical solution that will be subject to intellectual property (IP) or data rights. Declare the anticipated level of IP protection to be asserted and clearly identify the scope of assertion.

e. Milestones: The government plans to include three (3) payment milestones (program kickoff, midterm evaluation, final evaluation and design review) but will review additional proposed milestones associated with the critical events along the development schedule. If additional intermediate milestones are desired, provide details on these milestones and how they contribute to program success.

In addition to the above-required areas, the government may request the proposer provide additional information or detail with respect to its abstract. Proposers should expect to have approximately 60 minutes for the presentation and approximately 30 minutes to address any questions from the government panel. Oral Proposal Presentations are subject to the following constraints:

• No more than 30 slides in PDF or PowerPoint format, backup slides providing quantitative results or analysis are allowed (If CUI, the CUI cover slide will not count against the slide limit.)

• No smaller than 10-point font

• Video demonstrations are allowed

• All presented material is to be submitted to DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil. The due date will be provided in the oral proposal presentation invitation.

In the invitation to submit an Oral Proposal presentation, proposers will also be provided Appendices (1-9). All required/relevant appendices must be submitted with the Oral Proposal.

Proposer requested red lines to the agreement provided as Appendix 1 are expected to be submitted with the Oral Proposal and are critical to accelerate future negotiations.

The Appendices are detailed below:

APPENDIX DESCRIPTION

Appendix (1) Model OTA (Required)

Proposers will be asked to review content and fill-in the highlighted sections.

Proposers must complete and submit the Model OTA for Prototypes Agreement provided as Appendix (1) as part of the written proposal package. The model OTA is representative of the terms and conditions that DARPA intends to award and is intended to expedite the negotiation and award process. Proposers may suggest edits to the model OTA for consideration by DARPA. Please note that suggested edits may not be accepted by

DARPA.

Appendix (2) Task Description Document (Required)

Proposers should provide a detailed Task Description Document for their proposed activities, not to exceed 6 pages.

Appendix (3) Price Summary (Required)

Proposers shall provide a price summary including, at a minimum:

a) Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) with resources loaded for each Task. The resource loaded IMS should allow the government to analyze labor distribution material purchases, evaluate reasonableness of the proposed approach, and understand how resources will be applied to achieve task objectives. The IMS should include: Task Detail aligned with the Task Description Document (TDD); labor categories and hours allocation of the duration of each task; key deliverables; and fully burdened labor rates for each labor category defined as a single rate encompassing base labor, indirect costs, fringe benefits, and fee/profit;

mailto:DARPA-PS-26-01@darpa.mil

b) Material Costs;

c) Travel Costs;

d) Other Direct Costs; and

e) Proposers must provide supporting pricing rationale.

Supporting pricing rationale may include, but is not limited to, commercial price lists or comparisons to project(s) of similar complexity/magnitude of effort. Any comparisons must include actuals or award data including total project hours and cost; key labor categories; rational for us as an analogous parametric estimating, and an explanation of tasking/deliverable similarities;

f) Proposers must demonstrate price proposed for an Other Transaction Award is distinct from FAR-Based Procurement Pricing. Proposers may demonstrate this by identifying process related (hours) or rate related (indirect including material management/handling) savings associated with program execution under an OTA.

If proposing cost share; identify as a separate line item showing dollar amount and percentage of total project.

The government reserves the right to request additional information in support of evaluating the proposed pricing.

Appendix (4) Schedule of Milestones (Required)

Proposers must fill out the table for the milestones, proposed payments and exit criteria. The Schedule of Milestones should be aligned with the TDD.

Appendix (5) Property (Complete if applicable)

Proposer should fill out table if applicable.

Appendix (6) WAWF Instructions (Informational)

Instructions for using Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) to submit invoices

Appendix (7) Data Rights Assertions (Required)

Intellectual Property, if relevant. If all unlimited or Government Purpose Rights apply, mark as N/A.

If relevant, the performer shall propose right of use or license terms here for evaluation, to include commercial licenses.

Appendix (8) Value Based Questions (Optional submission)

Proposers are encouraged, but not required to provide answers to some, all, or none of the questions as part of the written proposal

Appendix (9) Nontraditional Attestation (Complete if applicable)

If the proposer represents that it is eligible for the award of an OTA under 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1)(A) because at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution is participating to a significant extent, an attestation must be provided.

3.5. Oral Proposal Presentations – Process and Basis of Evaluation

Oral proposal presentation evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance.

Individual presentations will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria described below:

a. Technical Approach The proposed technical approach is reasonable, feasible, and innovative. The approach demonstrates an innovative yet feasible approach to address the identified technical risks and challenges and meet program metrics.

b. Relevant Qualifications Personnel and/or company experience and qualifications are accurate, relevant, and demonstrate the ability of the proposer to meet the technical goals of the program.

c. Budget and Data Rights The proposed costs are reasonable, realistic, and affordable for the technical approach and accurately reflect the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach.

The extent to which data assertions allow the government to realize the objectives and progression of the TBD2 program. The government will require, at a minimum, limited rights to data in order to facilitate programmatic reviews and testing. While not required, less restrictive rights in data, such as Government Purpose Rights, will be considered advantageous.

The government intends for oral proposal presentations to be done virtually; the government reserves the right to record presentations. The government will evaluate the information provided in the content submission (documentation), the oral presentation, and the questions and answers session as the basis for evaluation. All material to be presented should be submitted to the government by the due date listed in the oral proposal invitation. Oral proposal presentations will be evaluated by the TBD2 program manager with support from a panel composed of Government personnel and government/FFRDC subject matter experts (SMEs).

After completing the evaluation of oral presentations, DARPA will 1) inform the proposer that its proposed concept/technology/solution is of interest and will proceed into contract negotiations or 2) inform the proposer that its proposed concept/technology/solution is not of continued interest to the government and they are no longer considered for participation in the program. If DARPA does not intend to issue an award to a proposer for the TBD2 effort, DARPA may provide brief feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision.

4. AWARDS

4.1. General Guidelines

Upon favorable review of the proposal and subject to the availability of funds, the government may choose to award an OTA for Prototypes for TBD2.

The AO reserves the right to negotiate directly with the proposer on the terms and conditions prior to the execution of the resulting OTA, including payment terms, and will execute the agreement on behalf of the government. Be advised that only a Government AO has the authority to enter into or modify a binding agreement on behalf of the United States Government.

In order to receive an award:

a. Proposers must have a Dunn and Bradstreet (DUNS) number and must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) at SAM.gov. Proposers are advised to commence SAM registration upon notification of entry to program competition.

b. Proposers must also register in the prescribed government invoicing system (Wide Area Work Flow: https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/registration/notice.xhtml). The AO will provide assistance to those proposers from whom a proposal is requested.

c. Proposers must be determined to be responsible by the AO and must not be suspended or debarred from an award by the Federal Government nor be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order and/or law from receiving an award.

d. Being asked to submit a proposal does not guarantee that a proposer will receive an award. The government reserves the right not to make an award.

4.2. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Controlled Technical Information (CTI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

Further information on CUI identification, marking, protecting, and control, to include processing on Non-DoD Information Systems, is incorporated herein and can be found at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa. A program-specific CUI Guide has been established and will be provided upon request to help proposers determine CUI thresholds for information relevant to and technologies developed under the program. As CTI is anticipated for this program, foreign proposers are encouraged to understand U.S. export law and have a plan in place to obtain export licenses when necessary. Possible methods include teaming with a U.S.

prime and/or having a U.S. subsidiary/parent company. The program-specific CUI guide must be observed and followed by Proposers in support of all submissions to the subject program.

4.3. Competition Sensitive Information

DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as competition-sensitive 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 non-disclosure agreements. Input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by DARPA from non-government consultants/experts who are strictly bound by the appropriate non-disclosure requirements.

4.4. Intellectual Property / Data Rights

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

The government will require, at a minimum, limited rights to data in order to facilitate programmatic reviews and testing. While not required, less restrictive rights in data, such as Government Purpose Rights, will be considered advantageous. Proposers may also recommend more restrictive data rights with appropriate justification, but these may be less advantageous for program goals.

4.5. Former Procurement Integrity Act (PIA)

All awards under this PS shall be treated as Federal Agency procurements for the purpose of 41 U.S.C. Chapter 21. Accordingly, the PS competitive solicitation process and awards made thereof must adhere to the ethical standards required by the former PIA.

5. PS DEFINITIONS

"Data" refers to recorded information, regardless of form or method of recording, which includes but is not limited to technical data, software, mask works, and trade secrets. The term does not include financial, administrative, cost, pricing, or management information and does not include inventions.

"Government Purpose" means any activity in which the United States Government is a party, including cooperative agreements with international or multi-national defense organizations or sales or transfers by the United States Government to foreign governments or international organizations.