FA8650-17-S-6001-RFI.pdf

Request for Information – Consortium for the Development of Autonomy Technologies

1.0 OVERVIEW INFORMATION

1.1 Federal Agency Name: Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Airman Systems Directorate

1.2 Program Name: Consortium for the Development of Autonomy Technologies

1.3 Statement of Requirements: AFRL seeks information on capabilities to develop/ populate and administer a consortium of approximately 50-100 industry and academia members who represent autonomy technology developers who are or could be addressing current and future Air Force and industry issues through collaborative research and industry implementation.

Requirements include:

• Technical:

o Ability to support a wide range of research topics pertaining to aerospace autonomy technologies (see Section 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION) o Development of teams from across the industry (small, large, and start-ups) and academia to collaboratively work on autonomy technical challenges and implement results in industry.

o Generate annual and final reports for each technical program awarded.

o Submit data generated during program to the Air Force.

• Collaboration:

o Support interactions of consortium members to foster collaboration.

o Develop and maintain guidelines for the consortium that define how and when data/information should be shared so that collaborations can thrive.

• Financial:

o Establish and execute the financial management mechanisms for the program.

o Allocate funds received from the Air Force to the consortium members according to the budget and technical development plan.

o Generate monthly, quarterly, and annual financial reports.

• Administrative Support:

o Provide a single point of contact to the financial officers of the consortium members and the Air Force or its designee.

o Facilitate meetings.

o Administer awards to consortium members, including ensuring that all contractual obligations are fulfilled.

o Accurately track and report financial and technical progress of awarded programs.

o Develop reports and presentations for Air Force about the awarded programs.

o Ability to handle ITAR/EAR data.

• Data support:

o Ability to handle ITAR/EAR data.

o Maintain a secure website that can host ITAR/EAR data with a restricted user list.

o Ability to collect and store reports and data generated under this program.

1.4 Disclaimer: There is no guarantee that any submission in response to this RFI will result in a Government program. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. Responders to this RFI will have no competitive advantage in receiving any awards related to the submitted topic area. The information submitted in response to this RFI may be used to help the Government further define its requirements. If the Government develops a program that addresses any submitted or similar topic, the resulting procurement will address technology and business specific requirements as defined by the Government to achieve the required objectives.

1.5 Response Guidelines: The government's suggested approach is to obtain information from interested participants through a written response not to exceed 5 pages. In addition, please respond to the questionnaire that follows in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 responses do not count towards the 5 page limitation.

Responses should include:

• Interested participant’s current capabilities that pertain to the objectives and requirements listed in this RFI (either technical or administrative)

• The ability of the interested parties to administer a vehicle that supports a sample consortium. (See Attachment 2 for an example consortium)

• Attachment 2 provides an example of how a Consortium can be structured. Describe how would you structure a Consortium.

1.6 Response Instructions: Responses to this RFI are limited to 5 double-spaced pages with one inch margins using standard letter-size 8½” x 11” paper. The page count includes any title page. Responses to Attachment 1 do not go towards the 5 page limitation. The font for text should be Times New Roman 12-point or larger. Responses must be unclassified, and should not contain company proprietary information. If classified material is received it will be returned without being assessed/considered.

Please pay attention to any company templates that automatically create a “company proprietary” or similar type statement. Those must be removed from the response. IF APPLICABLE, clearly indicate the appropriate distribution statement (B, C, D, etc.), For Official Use Only (FOUO), or ITAR-restricted. Multiple responses from a firm are acceptable. Marketing information is NOT acceptable in the response. Endorsements from elected officials at the federal, state, and/or local levels are NOT acceptable in the response.

The Government will not use any proprietary information submitted to establish the capability, requirements, approach, or solution so as to not inadvertently restrict competition. In order to complete its review, the Airman Systems Directorate must be able to share the information within the Government; therefore, any responses marked in a manner that will not permit such internal Government review will be returned/deleted without being assessed/considered.

Submission of existing commercial documentation and product literature is NOT an acceptable response.

1.7 Request for Clarification: A responder may request clarification, in writing, from the Contracting Office for any aspect of this RFI that is unclear, by sending an e-mail to elizabeth.fink.1@us.af.mil.

Any requests for clarification must be received no later than seven (7) days prior to the close of this RFI in order to receive a timely response.

Technical questions regarding this RFI should be directed to Maj John Imhoff, 711 HPW/RH at john.imhoff@us.af.mil.

1.8 Response Due Date: Responses to this RFI shall be submitted to Elizabeth Fink, Contracting Officer before 3:00 pm EST on 19 January, 2018.

Responders shall provide one (1) electronic copy (in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat) delivered either via email or mailed on a CD/DVD. Only 1 CD/DVD may be submitted.

Additional CDs/DVDs will be discarded. Submission of marketing information, existing commercial documentation, and product literature is NOT an acceptable response.

Documentation shall be delivered to the following Contracting Office:

AFRL/RQKHB

2130 8th St.

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 ATTN: Elizabeth Fink Elizabeth.fink.1@us.af.mil

1.9 Proposed Strategy: The Government intends to review all submissions received in response to this RFI. However, the Government reserves the right to reject, in whole or in part, any vendor's input resulting from this RFI. Upon completion of the market research, the Government may issue another RFI to obtain additional information. The Government may also develop requirements, performance measures, inspection and acceptance procedures, taking into consideration the information provided in response to this announcement. It is anticipated that awards that may result from any solicitation developed as a result of the subject RFI may include Assistance Instruments.

THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR PROPOSALS. DO NOT SUBMIT PROPOSALS AT THIS TIME. ANY

PROPOSALS RECEIVED WILL BE DISCARDED.

mailto:john.imhoff@us.af.mil

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Estimated Program Funding: The Federal Government (DoD) anticipates a total government program value of at least $100M distributed across 5 fiscal years (FY). The associated costs for Consortium Administrator will be included in this amount.

2.2 General: AFRL is soliciting responses in order to determine the capabilities of the technology developers (industry, to include small business, start-up companies, and academia) to form a consortium to develop autonomy technologies for aerospace systems through the application of collaborative efforts. These efforts should strengthen the aerospace autonomy industrial base by meeting military priorities and defense needs consistent with AFRL long term challenges; building a technology supplier base that can provide critical software, algorithms, and architectures/frameworks, and instantiate software components in an autonomous system (hardware). Members of the consortium should include representatives from across the aerospace community, as well as machine learning and other artificial intelligence developers, and must demonstrate some core competency or technical capability impacting the advancement of autonomous aerospace systems. The consortium should show the ability to reach out to start-up companies as well as small businesses, to help drive innovation in shorten development timelines.

In support of these objectives, examples of strategic initiatives and technical challenges encompassing a wide range of challenges for autonomy to include the algorithms and software for:

1. Machine learning

2. Data fusion

3. Machine perception/vision

4. Software assurance

5. Formal methods

6. Optimization techniques

7. Planners (task and route)

8. Course of action generators

All areas of research will be assessed at various levels of demonstration to include modeling and simulation, small unmanned system, and/or surrogate unmanned system testbeds.

2.3 Background: The vision of AFRL Autonomy research is to accelerate the development, maturation, demonstration, and transition of foundational aerospace technologies necessary to advance the state-of-the-art of autonomy for: Command & Control; Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination of Intelligence; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Recognizance Collection;

Manned-Unmanned Combat Teams; and Manned-Unmanned Team of Teams. Guided by architectural investment at multiple levels, the program intends to gradually mature software components and incrementally demonstrate increasingly complex autonomous capabilities.

Each project is intended to advance the state of autonomy technologies. The technology demonstrations that result from this research will substantially improve the Air Force's capability to conduct missions in a variety of environments while minimizing the risks to Airmen. The overall impact of integration of autonomous systems into the mission space will enable the Air Force to operate inside of the enemy’s decision loop.

Development efforts will mature technologies that enable airmen to plan, command, control, and execute missions, while teaming with intelligent machines. The intelligent machine software algorithms and supporting architectures shall:

o Ingest and understand mission taskings and commander’s intent o Respond appropriately to human direction and orders o Respond intelligently to dynamic threats and unplanned events to in accordance with commander’s intent

In the development of technologies there will be a focus on them being open, reusable, adaptable, platform agnostic, secure, credible, affordable, enduring, and able to be integrated into autonomous systems. Over the life of the program, there will be collaboration on various technologies developed by AFRL, academia and industry, integrated into technology demonstrations and deliverables with all the necessary software, hardware, and documentation to support AFRL-owned modeling and simulation environments for future capability developments. Thus, all technology development efforts must adhere to designs and standards that will be evolving over the time of the program.

The main objective of this consortium will be to develop the autonomy technologies that enable the behaviors across the many families-of-systems and mission profiles. In marching towards this objective, each project must provide value to the Air Force and to consortium members through insertions and demonstrated return-on-investment.

3.0 SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

o 5 pages maximum including any title page. Attachment 1 responses do not count towards the 5 page limitation.

o 8 ½” x 11” paper o Double Spaced o One inch margins o Times New Roman 12-point font or larger o Unclassified o No marketing information, commercial documentation, or product literature o Non-Proprietary Microsoft Word or PDF format only o Submitted via email or on a CD/DVD.

o IF APPLICABLE, clearly indicate the appropriate distribution statement (B, C, D, etc.), For

Official Use Only (FOUO), or ITAR-restricted o No marketing information, commercial documentation, or product literature o No endorsements from elected officials at the federal, state, and/or local level o Due date is 3:00 PM EST, 19 January 2018

Attachment 1 Consortium for the Development of Autonomy Technologies

RFI Questionnaire

Company Name:

Cage Code:

Head quarter location:

POC for RFI:

1) What capabilities that pertain to the requirements listed in this RFI will your company/ group bring to the consortium? (300 words or less)

2) What experience (or plans) does your company have working with academia and industry (to include large, small and start-up firms) in a consortium or collaborative setting? Describe experience working collaboratively with industry members who are direct competitors? (300 words or less)

3) What experience (or plans) does your company have working for the DoD? What does your company supply to the DoD (directly or indirectly)? (300 words or less)

4) Do you or would you have access to facilities to host some of the research efforts, as needed, of the consortium members? Do you have experience in procuring hardware and equipment?

5) Do you have ITAR/EAR certification (or experience)?

6) Does your company have a government approved accounting system?

7) What level of security classification do you currently possess?

8) Are you interested in acting as a Consortium Administrator for this program?

8a) If so, would you be willing to have the name of your company and POC information posted to the general public?

Attachment 2: Example Consortium Structure

Attachment 2 is provided as an EXAMPLE of how an autonomy consortium may be structured.

The example consortium is the way many other Air Force-funded consortia are structured.

Section A: Program Operating Plan

An example structure of a consortium’s management approach is depicted in the figure below:

The autonomy consortium activities would be overseen by the Executive Steering Committee who would give guidance and authority to the Technology Council who would flow that authority down to the Thrust Areas and Project Teams. The Executive Steering Committee guidance would consist of technical items like thrust areas for research, as well as business metrics that would influence project selection. The Technology Council would have authority over the technical scope and direction and be responsible for developing technology roadmaps for various thrust areas. The Technology Council members would not have authority to legally bind their respective organizations contractually, financially or in any other way.

The requirements for administrative and support activities, as well as support to start-up entities, would be coordinated with the Executive Steering Committee and managed by the Consortium Administrator.

The Industry leadership (co-chairmen) of the Executive Steering Committee and Technology Council would be selected by the members of their respective councils. The government representative of each committee shall always be a co-chairman. The Project Team Leads may be selected by the team (Leaders of major tasks will be selected by the Project Teams leads). It would be expected the consortium would need a membership structure to allow for academia and small or larger industry members to have membership, yet facilitate start-up members to participate without overburdening them with a fee.

The consortium team will need a Task/Gate process, or similar process, to maximize progress and allow go/no-go decisions for projects.

Executive Steering Committee (ESC) The ESC would be made up of executive-level members from each of the Consortium Members and the AFRL. Each Consortium Member would be entitled to have one voting representative as a member of the ESC, and each such Consortium Member representative will have one (1) vote. Each Consortium Member would designate its ESC representative and an alternate in writing. The ESC would review and determine appropriate action for all technical and business issues and recommend action to the Consortium Administrator regarding contract and other administrative issues. The ESC would:

1) support the Technology Council and assure that the necessary facilities, equipment, staff, and funding are provided on a timely basis for the Project Team efforts,

2) provide strategic guidance to the Technology Council in order to assist them in achieving the goals (i.e. thrust areas, business processes, etc.), and

3) respond to issues that are raised by the Technology Council which will inhibit the accomplishment of research goals and cannot be resolved at the Technology Council Member level.

The ESC would hold meetings, as often as necessary to conduct Consortium business, but in no event, less than two (2) times a year. The meetings would be conducted at locations chosen on a rotating basis by the ESC, or as is mutually acceptable to the Members. The AFRL Member or designee would attend and participate in every meeting of the ESC.

Technology Council The ESC representative from each Consortium Member and AFRL would appoint its corresponding Technology Council member, who would assume the responsibilities listed below. Each Consortium Member and AFRL would be entitled to have one voting representative as a member of the Technology Council. The Technology Council responsibilities would include:

1) establish specific Thrust Area and Project goals as needed to clarify its vision, mission, and quest for meaningful projects,

2) develop and maintain a rational Proposal Evaluation Process (PEP) which will be used by the Technology Council to select technical projects for ESC approval,

3) oversee the overall autonomy technical, schedule, and cost of the Project Team activities within the functions of gate reviews and selection of new projects per the Proposal Evaluation Process,

4) ensure integration of the individual technical efforts into coherent thrust areas with strong interaction between projects, as appropriate,

5) facilitate communication between the thrust areas and project efforts,

6) assess progress and provide the necessary redirection in order to achieve the autonomy goals, and

7) resolve issues raised by the Thrust Areas and/or Project Teams.

Thrust Areas and Project Teams Thrust Areas would be defined by the Technology Council (and approved by the ESC) to gather like projects and to facilitate a way to manage technology advancement. Project Teams would be formed in response to proposal (white paper) solicitations. Consortium Members and selected subcontractors would collaborate to pursue a common technical objective. The Project Teams would be responsible for project execution as well as resource and financial management of the project. The Project Teams would be accountable to the Technology Council. The Project Teams and their technical development plans are approved per the Proposal Evaluation Process (PEP) and re-endorsed through status reviews by the Technology Council.

Section B: Types of Technical Programs

There should two general types of technical programs to include: Type I (Air Force initiated) and Type II (Industry driven).

Type I programs would have significant alignment with AFRL research interests and the statement of objectives is defined by the Air Force. There may be cost share (percent to be determined). The projects would be selected by the Air Force and funded by Fiscal Year.

Type II programs would be considered industry (or academia) driven programs and would respond to a statement of objectives that is mutually defined by the Air Force, academia and industry members of the consortium. The Technology Council would recommend which proposals to fund and the ESC would approve final selection. There would be generally a cost share (percent to be determined) and the projects could be funded by Task.

Section C: Description of the Task-Gate Process

A process must be established to review progress, assess viability of the project and decide if continuation is warranted. An example review process in the Task/Gate process. This is a risk-minimization plan that is based on sound business decision-making methods used by industry that make significant investments in technology. All selected projects would be structured to align with a Task-Gate process, which allows for a step-wise progression of development and gate reviews to be performed at critical points to assess plan progress, test the proposed economics, and approve continuation of activity into the next task. A Task-Gate process is schematically summarized in the figure below.

The Gates progress from Task 1 (concept) to Task 5 (full production). Gate reviews are designed to allow the process owners, customers, and Technology Council members to assess the technical progress and economic benefit of a project. The Gates are the primary cost control mechanism for the management of each project. Exit criteria has been developed and defined for each Gate, on which the Project status assessment is based.

Should a gate assessment determine that insufficient progress has been achieved during a prior task of a project, or those obstacles related to technical, supplier, or efficiency issues cannot be overcome, then a no-go decision would be made and the project would be terminated.

Section D: Technical and Financial Reporting Requirements

The following type of reports would be submitted. The Consortium Administrator would publish and distribute guidelines for Thrust and/or Project Annual and Final Reports to help the Technology Council and Project Teams prepare and process these documents in a timely manner and with a minimum of effort.

• Task reports – intra-project reviews

• Task reports – Technology Council status reviews

• Annual Report

• Interim and Final Patent Reports

• Business Reports

• Final Technical Report