24-03 Amend 10 second repub.docx

AMENDMENT 10 TO BAA FA8750-24-S-7003

The purpose of this modification is to republish the original announcement, incorporating any previous amendments, pursuant to FAR 35.016(c).

This republishing also includes the following changes:

1. Part II, Full Text Announcement:

a) Section V.3, updates the Simplified Acquisition Threshold to $350,000;

b) Section V.4, updates the certified cost and pricing data threshold to $2.5M;

c) Section VI.3, updates the debriefing language;

d) Section VI.5.b.3, updates the DFARS clause;

e) Section VI.5.c, updates the DFARS clause;

f) Section VI.7, updates the provisions;

g) Section IVI.9; updates the DFARS reference;

h) Section VI, deletes paragraph 12 related to 15% indirect cost cap

i) Section VII: updates the OMBUDSMAN.

No other changes have been made.

NAICS CODE: 541715

FEDERAL AGENCY NAME: Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFRL - Rome Research Site, AFRL/Information Directorate, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, NY, 13441-4514

BAA ANNOUNCEMENT TYPE: Modification

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) TITLE: Coordinating Austere Nodes through Virtualization and Analysis of Streams (CANVAS)

BAA NUMBER: FA8750-24-S-7003

PART I – OVERVIEW INFORMATION

This announcement is for an Open, 2 Step BAA which is open and effective until 21 MAY 2029. Only white papers will be accepted as initial submissions; formal proposals will be accepted by invitation only. While white papers will be considered if received prior to 1600 hours Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 21 MAY 2029, the following submission dates are suggested to best align with projected funding:

FY25 by 28 Jun 2024 (Please note: For FY25, AFRL is seeking whitepapers for TA1 ONLY; further, see Figure 2 on page 7; for FY25, AFRL will only consider components in WHITE; TA2 and TA1 SHADED components will not be considered for FY25.

FY26 by 15 Jun 2025 (Please note: For FY26, AFRL is seeking whitepapers for TA1 ONLY; further, see Figure 2 on page 7; for FY26, AFRL will only consider components in WHITE; TA2 and TA1 SHADED components will not be considered for FY26.

FY27 by 15 Jun 2026 FY28 by 15 Jun 2027 FY29 by 15 Jun 2028

Offerors should monitor the Contract Opportunities on the SAM website at https://SAM.gov in the event this announcement is amended.

CONCISE SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT: This BAA is seeking innovative research to develop a capability to continuously orchestrate command and control (C2) processes in an Agile Combat Employment (ACE) operational environment through distributed workflow execution. We are particularly interested in approaches to orchestrate the execution of distributed workflows that adhere to maintaining flexibility, while adapting to a dynamic operational environment. The Air Force plans to complicate the adversary’s targeting problem through the distribution of forces to increase survivability and maintain functionality. Successful distributed C2 operations will rely on distributed control and decentralized execution, with an assumption that specific conditional authorities will be delegated to lower tier nodes. As the Air Force transitions from monolithic C2 nodes to many distributed nodes, it will require a capability to execute distributed C2 workflows across multiple locations while maintaining awareness of changing states to functions, resources, and mission objectives. The Coordinating Austere Nodes through Virtualization and Analysis of Streams (CANVAS) program proposes to meet these demand signals by designing and developing a system prototype that assumes contested and degraded environments will be normal for executing distributed operations.

The CANVAS program proposes to develop a system for distributed task execution that includes a virtual C2 layer (TA1) to realize the concept of maintaining centralized command in distributed operations and a decentralized C2 framework (TA2) to support the execution of workflows across many physically dispersed C2 nodes. Virtualizing the C2 layer will allow AF command nodes to conduct tradeoff analysis of business rule changes and conditions-based authorities, through simulating the execution of dynamic workflows under operationally relevant conditions, before pushing changes that align with commander’s intent into the decentralized C2 framework. Populating downstream changes from the command node that achieve intent of the system, will allow distributed teams to execute local workflows through trust, shared awareness, and understanding of commander’s intent. Orchestrating these changes through intent-based networking concepts will achieve real-time tracking of the downstream effects within the workflows and graphs of the decentralized C2 framework. The TA2 execution framework fills a critical operational gap within ACE by realizing the full utilization of capacity of operational and tactical C2 elements while increasing the resiliency of these same elements. TA2 will research and develop the ability to orchestrate operational processes, while optimizing for limited resources in a contested environment.

BAA ESTIMATED FUNDING: Total funding for this BAA is approximately $24.9M. Individual awards will not normally exceed 48 months with dollar amounts normally ranging from $200K to $3M. There is also the potential to make awards up to any dollar value as long as the value does not exceed the available BAA ceiling amount.

ANTICIPATED INDIVIDUAL AWARDS: Multiple Awards are anticipated. However, the Air Force reserves the right to award zero, one, or more Procurement Contracts, Other Transactions, or Assistance Instruments, for all, some, or none of the solicited effort based on the offeror’s ability to perform desired work and funding fluctuations. There is no limit on the number of OTs that may be awarded to an individual offeror.

TYPE OF INSTRUMENTS THAT MAY BE AWARDED: FAR based Procurement contracts, CFR based grants and cooperative agreements or other transactions (OT) under 10 USC 4021, 10 USC 4022 ( previously 10 USC 4002, 2371, 10 USC 4003, 2371b) depending upon the nature of the work proposed. 10 USC 4023 also allows for FAR based contracts, OTs for research, OTs for Prototype, and assistance instruments.

In the event that an Other Transaction for Prototype agreement is awarded as a result of this competitive BAA, and the prototype project is successfully completed, there is the potential for a prototype project to transition to award of a follow-on production contract or transaction. The Other Transaction for Prototype Agreement itself will also contain a similar notice of a potential follow-on production contract or agreement.

REGARDING ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS: Gold Standard Science (GSS): IAW EO 14303; GSS is science conducted in a manner that is:

a. reproducible;

b. transparent;

c. communicative of error and uncertainty;

d. collaborative and interdisciplinary;

e. skeptical of its findings and assumptions;

f. structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;

g. subject to unbiased peer review;

h. accepting negative results as positive outcomes; and

i. without conflicts of interest.”

With regards to GSS, white papers/proposals shall:

1. include clear benchmarks for measuring success and progress towards relevant goals and a commitment to achieving GSS;

2. identify areas of demonstrating success in implementing GSS; and

3. include a commitment to complying with administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting GSS. By responding to this BAA you explicitly agree to the following statement:

· Our institution understands the definition of Gold Standard Science as outlined above.

· Our institution and all personnel involved in the proposed project will adhere to all administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science in the execution of this project if funded.

AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION: All white paper submissions and any questions of a technical nature shall be directed to the cognizant Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) as specified below (unless otherwise specified in the technical area):

BAA PROGRAM MANAGER:

Ryan Hilliard

AFRL/RISB

525 Brooks Rd Rome, NY 13441-4505 Telephone: (315) 330-2571 Email: ryan.hilliard.3@us.af.mil

Questions of a contractual/business nature shall be directed to the cognizant contracting officer, as specified below (email requests are preferred):

Amber Buckley Telephone (315) 330-3605 Email: Amber.Buckley@us.af.mil

Emails must reference the solicitation (BAA) number and title of the acquisition.

Pre-Proposal Communication between Prospective Offerors and Government Representatives: Dialogue between prospective offerors and Government representatives is encouraged. Technical and contracting questions can be resolved in writing or through open discussions. Discussions with any of the points of contact shall not constitute a commitment by the Government to subsequently fund or award any proposed effort. Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government.

Offerors are cautioned that evaluation ratings may be lowered and/or proposal rejected if proposal preparation (Proposal format, content, etc.) and/or submittal instructions are not followed.

PART II – FULL TEXT ANNOUNCEMENT

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) TITLE: Coordinating Austere Nodes through Virtualization and Analysis of Streams (CANVAS)

BAA NUMBER: FA8750-24-S-7003

Assistance Listing Number: 12.800 Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA) Orders: Depending on the date of issuance of this solicitation, FASCSA order(s) may be applicable. Therefore, the Offeror shall search for the phrase “FASCSA order” in the System for Award Management (SAM) (https://www.sam.gov) for any covered article, or any products or services produced or provided by a source, if there is an applicable Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders prohibition. This requirement only applies to FAR based awards.

I. TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS:

The Air Force Research Laboratory is soliciting white papers under this Broad Agency Announcement for research, development, integration, test, and evaluation of technologies/techniques to create a capability within AFRL/RI to revolutionize distributed command and control in contested environments by leveraging intent-based networking concepts for the continuous orchestration between a decentralized execution framework and a virtualized C2 layer. The TA2 framework and the TA1 virtual layer will be comprised of components that can optimize, orchestrate, and execute distributed C2 task allocations, while anticipating effects of conditions-based authorities to enable process execution. These capabilities will enable the Chief of Combat Operations to efficiently coordinate distributed forces in contested environments. These components should be researched and developed with a target integration within the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) stack once technology reaches proper maturity level. ABMS concepts are being developed to support emerging Air Force doctrine that outlines distributed operations against a near-pear adversary in a contested environment.

Agile Combat Employment (ACE) doctrine details challenges imposed by adversarial technological advances that place a greater number of U.S. military bases at risk that were previously considered sanctuaries. ACE is “a proactive and reactive operational scheme of maneuver executed within threat timelines to increase survivability while generating combat power.” A main driver of ACE Concept of Operations (CONOPS) is to increase survivability of friendly forces by complicating the adversary’s targeting process. To effectively accomplish the Joint Force Commander’s mission objectives in ACE CONOPS, C2 systems need to be reexamined and further developed to efficiently coordinate distributed forces in contested environments. Two key concepts within ACE, that are to be further explored within CANVAS are conditions-based authorities and mission command. Conditions-based authorities are a published set of authorities that can be delegated down the chain of command from one command node to subordinate nodes. They are meant to be activated only when a prescribed set of conditions are met. Misson command is an approach to C2 that empowers subordinate decision making through flexibility, initiative, and responsiveness in the accomplishment of commander’s intent.

Inherent in ACE and Mission Command doctrine is the idea of centralized command, distributed control, and decentralized execution (CC-DC-DE) to enable the C2 of ACE. According to mission command doctrine, “centralized command is best accomplished by an airmen at the functional component commander level who maintains a broad focus on the joint force commander’s (JFC’s) objectives.” A key output of centralized command is to capture commander’s intent, such as standard 5 paragraph operations order (OPORD) or through the air operations directive (AOD), and authoritatively cast that intent throughout the distributed C2 system. The delegation of authority to subordinate commanders is the hallmark for successful distributed control. The benefits of distributed control are maximized through clear distillation of commander’s intent into subordinate actions (Mission Type Orders). The empowerment of subordinate decision-making guided by clear commander’s intent and risk tolerance is key to successful decentralized execution. This type of execution optimizes decisions in the tactical echelon by granting decision authority to those closest to the fight.

The ability to command and control distributed teams and weapon systems in a contested fight has become a major concern for the Air Force. Current Air Force operations rely on centralized C2 nodes to conduct planning and orchestration for execution, which has been proven to maximize efficiency in past conflicts. The Air Force has identified the current operations structure to be a high risk in a near peer engagement due to the potential vulnerabilities of Air Operations Center’s (AOC), which can represent a single point of failure. By distributing C2 resources through ACE CONOPS to perform additional C2 functions outside of the AOC, the Air Force will increase the availability and survivability of these resources for process execution. The challenge to fully realizing the Air Force’s vision of ACE is efficiently utilizing the distributed resources at the proper time, to maximize the capacity of each function, while minimizing the process execution time.

The CANVAS program seeks to maximize the utilization of distributed resources to execute missions and allow for the exploration of task allocation between the Chief of Combat Operations (CCO) and distributed operational units. Command nodes and the C2 plans teams provide inputs into the task allocation assessment through commander’s intent, mission type orders, and operational planned C2 laydowns. The C2 plans team within the Combat Plans Division (CPD), provides planned C2 laydowns and resources to enable the Air Tasking Cycle. These plans will be used as inputs to a command node and used for commanders to assess mission thread objectives. A command node holds the authority for a subset of mission threads within a geographic region and outputs commander’s intent as execution guidance. The CCO maintains the immediate authority and conditional authorities given to each combat operations unit. The combat operations division (COD) units would be deployed nodes in an ACE laydown, tasked with dynamically executing Air Force functions that comprise various mission threads. A dynamically changing set of external factors like environment and intent of mission threads will require an approach that can orchestrate processes in execution, manage the complexity of shared resources, and efficiently utilize the capacity and resiliency of the distributed C2 functions. The Government envisions a concept depicted in Figure 1, with the CANVAS system providing the interface for a continuous refinement of mission type orders and conditional authorities to enhance execution of distributed tasks.

Figure 1: CANVAS will enable command nodes to effectively push guidance and intent to distributed nodes, while accounting for the reality of an evolving battlespace in execution.

The objective of the CANVAS program is to research and develop technical approaches that allow the Air Force to efficiently maintain centralized command, while orchestrating distributed control and decentralized execution. Continuously evaluating conditional authorities and mission type orders to improve distributed C2 process execution in a contested environment will require the utilization of workflows as a coordination tool between CANVAS system and the current Air Force processes. Workflows can be thought of as a model for a process that consists of steps in series or parallel and relies on conditions to complete each step. They are typically formalized in Business Process Management Notation (BPMN) or Systems Modeling Language (SysML). The benefit of formalizing in either language is the ease of integrating multiple workflows for evaluation of a system or large process flow. In prior AFRL studies that utilized workflows to coordinate a singular process flow within an AOC, it was determined that workflows offer the flexibility to coordinate human in the loop, human on the loop and fully manual processes. CANVAS will build on these results in a distributed environment. We assert that using workflows to coordinate both local and global workflows across distributed nodes will improve local task efficiency while maximizing the distributed system’s ability to efficiently utilize resource pools.

The over-arching strategy of this five-year open BAA is to quickly and efficiently deliver forward thinking solutions to meet urgent and future demand signals. With future ABMS integration in mind, AFRL seeks to establish an on-ramp evaluation capability to ensure proper evaluation of developed components. A component could be a software package, a web service, a micro-service, a web resource, or a module that encompasses a set of functions and data. A component-based software engineering approach ensures that the aspects of the framework are reusable and can loosely couple multiple components within the system. Components developed as micro-services provide development and integration capabilities that can easily be deployed to a distributed system. Following an agile DevSecOps pipeline will allow for agile development and testing of multiple integrated components into the greater CANVAS system. These efforts are anticipated to entail rapidly integrating developed components and algorithms into functional prototypes that extend the state of distributed C2 technologies in two key areas:

· Virtualization and Visualization of Distributed C2 Workflows. The ability for a commander to visualize current C2 process in execution while simulating potential changes to intent and conditions-based authorities for future tasking. The government is not interested in the development of a simulation engine for this but would encourage simple approaches that leverage pre-existing M&S tools or techniques. This area will provide the commander with much needed analysis of mission outcomes based on the level of delegated authorities as well as the specificity of orders. The proposed solution must account for dynamic environmental changes such as degradation of resources or functions, that impact commander’s intent, associated risk and delegation of authorities.

· Decentralized Execution of Distributed C2 Workflows. The ability to coordinate C2 tasking across austere nodes through the orchestration of policies, instantiation of plans, and execution of orders. Operators should be able to understand full depth of decisions while managing local and global mission constraints such as time, resources, and authorities. The government is not interested in a complete M&S solution to this. However, we do anticipate value in simulating degradation to variables that would impact the execution of distributed workflows. The proposed solution should support dynamic changes to workflows within execution.

These technical challenges will be addressed as a two-phase program effort directed towards the development and evaluation of an integrated system of systems prototype that will be evaluated in an operationally relevant environment. The first phase of the effort will focus on researching and developing technically relevant components of each key technology area, with the second phase intended to integrate components into the CANVAS system prototype and evaluate in an operationally relevant environment. The resulting system should model and assess incoming information such as C2 plans, commander’s intent, and mission type orders to enable assessment through the virtual C2 layer. These assessments should enable a decentralized execution framework and orchestration logic to assist the foreseen manual lift of coordinating AF planning and operational processes across many distributed C2 nodes.

Figure 2 provides an overview of capabilities envisioned for each of the technical areas and how they are intended to interact. Note that for the FY25 and FY26 cycle of proposals, the government is seeking proposals for components in white from TA1 only. White papers that address TA2 or shaded components from TA1 will not be considered for FY25 and FY26.

Figure 2: Notional functional components for the CANVAS architecture with the associated technical areas requested in this BAA in white. Note the components in gray are not requested in FY25 or FY26 but are included for reference.

Technical Area 1: Virtualization and Visualization of Distributed C2 Workflow This technical area should account for maintaining the responsibility and authority for planning, directing, and coordinating military operations with the commander. They should account for a dynamically changing set of external factors like environment and intent of mission threads while delivering multi-domain effects through coordination and reach. Virtualizing the physical set of distributed C2 nodes and functions will enhance the centralized command component of the distributed system. As part of the virtual C2 layer of the CANVAS system, AF operators will conduct tradeoff analysis of business rule changes and conditions-based authorities, through simulating the execution of dynamic workflows under operationally relevant conditions, before pushing changes that align with commander’s intent into the decentralized C2 framework. This gives the CANVAS system a component that can run system level optimizations and dynamically update intent-based constraints based on analysis. The components within the virtual C2 layer will enable the orchestration of processes in execution, manage the complexity of shared resources and maximize the capacity and resiliency of the distributed C2 nodes.

The virtual C2 layer should allow for management and tracking of forces and functions consistent with the commander’s intent. We are seeking development initiatives in TA2 that provide commander’s with the flexibility to make changes, while integrating and synchronizing actions across dispersed nodes. Synchronizing these actions will mitigate risks associated with the potential for lack of overall operational picture while operating in a contested environment. The virtual C2 layer will combine a set of resources, services, analysis, and intent-based applications to optimize over the ACE distributed C2 environment and provide COD decision makers with necessary information to compete in a contested environment. These decisions will be executed and tracked within the decentralized C2 framework.

Detailed description of TA1 component the Government is NOT interested in for this BAA:

· Intent Formulation – Parse out the commander’s intent into a set of achievable policies from the official written guidance. This guidance can be for a given mission, area of responsibility (AOR), or mission type. These will be used to define the ruleset for global workflows within the intent-based orchestrator.

Detailed description of TA1 components the Government is interested in for this BAA:

· Policy Generation – translates the mission thread objectives from plans or updated guidance into software defined policies. These policies should be instantiated into the workflows to automate parts of the decision logic. They can be used as inputs to conditions-based authorities propagation.

· Tradeoff Analysis - For a given mission thread or subset of mission threads within a scenario, provide the assessment of where to re-route tasks and reaggregate resources to prioritize mission success, while adhering to commander’s intent. The simulation of policies and conditions-based authorities within a scenario will evaluate the tasking outcomes based on the original set of commander’s intent. The government is not interested in the development of a simulation engine for this but would encourage approaches that use pre-existing M&S tools.

· Conditions-Based Authorities Propagation – Delegate mission level tasking to austere nodes through mapping of conditions-based authorities to each mission type order.

· Intent Validation – Identify the gaps and risk if intent constraints are violated. Use what-if analysis to determine where missions could fail based on formulated intent.

Intent Based Orchestrator: Intent-Based Networking (IBN) is an emerging technology concept that aims to apply a deeper level of intelligence to replace the manual processes of configuring networks, while dynamically reacting to network issues. Aspects of this technology that could be advantageous to the CANVAS system through rapid implementation of business goals into pre-existing configurations and optimized analytics for how the network of distributed C2 nodes is performing. This application should encompass both distributed control algorithms and distributed execution algorithms. In this case an application is a piece of software that should be integrated into the CANVAS system but would still maintain functionality as an individual entity. The distributed control algorithms should instantiate policy generated within the virtual C2 layer to the decentralized C2 framework. The decentralized execution algorithms should focus on routing logic that efficiently coordinates distributed forces in a contested environment that adhere to system generated policies.

Current routing logic used in prior AFRL studies only possessed the capability to evaluate functions one step ahead of the current state within the workflow. There is a critical gap to fill for a system with advanced optimization algorithms that can take a slice of the virtual C2 layer and look at the effects of a current decision on each future step of the process. Algorithm development for this effort will focus on predictive system-level optimization by applying rules-based and intent-based cost function logic. Deliverables for the orchestrator within TA1 should include algorithms developed in support of predictive routing logic that align with intent-based orchestration concepts. There are three key focus areas to assess the application of an intent-based orchestrator to orchestrate decentralized execution distributed C2 workflows.

· Orchestrating human and machine executable processes that are resource constrained.

· Algorithm should address varying “intent” of a mission thread and change how the C2 processes utilize distributed functions and resources in execution.

· Managing the complexity of shared resources across distributed C2 nodes and distributed C2 processes that are continuously executing.

· Algorithm should address the deconfliction of shared resources and continuously manage when “intent” of mission threads is used to influence priority of process execution.

· Tracking conditions-based authorities of specific processes to delegate tasking through lower tier C2 nodes.

· Algorithm should update the conditions-based authority of each function as “intent” of the mission threads is used to influence priority of process execution at alternate nodes.

Visualization Dashboard for Virtual C2 Layer: CANVAS will need a visual representation of the virtual C2 layer that includes a data analysis dashboard, a representation of the physical C2 layer, and environmental factors dynamically enacted on the system. The data analysis dashboard should maintain specific user properties that display updated capacity, efficiency, resiliency of overall system as well as individual subsets of functions. The dashboard should display the predicted topology of blue C2 nodes within a scenario or real-time event stream that ingests and updates the status of each C2 node. This operational picture will allow for tracking of tasks being performed by each distributed node within an ACE CONOPS and will be used to inform centralized command decisions. For this BAA the government is not interested in AR/VR approaches to visualization.

Note that for the FY25 and FY26 cycle of proposals, the government is seeking proposals for components in white from TA1 only. This is depicted further in Figure 2. White papers that address TA2 or shaded components from TA1 will not be considered for FY25 and FY26.

Technical Area 2: Decentralized Execution of Distributed C2 Workflows This technical area will focus on development with a distributed system of systems approach. We are seeking components that would enable an orchestration logic to replace the manual lift of coordinating COD mission threads across a contested distributed battlespace. The intent of each mission thread is a key input to apply a priority schema across multiple mission threads in execution. An example of intent for a dynamic targeting mission thread is the defined outcome of completing all fixed low priority targets in under x hours. The system would propagate this intent to the workflows that maintain the ability to re-route tasks and reaggregate resources to meet this intent, while optimizing for additional system criteria. This technical area should maintain a focus on execution while possessing a capability to capture the behavior of the C2 system through simulation of scenario that include degradations to test system components such as resource and task allocation optimizations.

Each of the following components should output sets of statistics and metrics, such as utilization and efficiency, to monitor and analyze the performance and behavior of the system. The decentralized C2 framework should enable the aggregation of raw data to generate statistics over specific time intervals. The focus should be to display real-time data through visualizations such as charts, graphs, and tables, while capturing behavior of system through archived reports.

Detailed description of TA2 components the Government is NOT interested in for this BAA:

· Resource Management (TA2) – Account for utilization rates, monitoring, allocation, and availability of resources within the system to include but not limited to people, hardware, communication links. Should assess the risks associated with resource availability and minimizes the down time.

· Topology Generation (TA2) – Instantiation of each distributed C2 node with the necessary components and data to orchestrate mission execution. Verify optimal node configurations with current network conditions to include the number and type of each C2 node.

· Time Management (TA2)– Track the state time of nodes and workflows during execution. The time manager should synchronize clocks across CANVAS micro-services of distributed C2 system. This is essential for ensuring consistency and accuracy when a single workflow is executed by more than one C2 node.

· Degradation Management – Apply networking and commination interruptions, losses, and delays. Enforce and manage up and down times for a subset of distributed C2 nodes. This component should support a simulation mode, to capture the behavior of the C2 system while allowing resource allocation and task execution optimizations to take place.

· Workflow Change Management – Dynamically update local workflows in execution based on results of optimization inference. Track and manage changes needed based on degradation to resources or system components. Output analysis will inform future process flows.

· Conditions-Based Authorities Management – Track alternative execution paths based on external conditions, while maintaining a change history of new authorities to execute tasking. Enforce task and resource allocation due to up and down times for a subset of distributed C2 nodes.

It is important to understand that the focus of this BAA is on the framework, components, applications and optimization algorithms necessary to support C2 process execution in distributed and contested environments. The CANVAS system prototype should be developed with decentralized execution in mind, while accounting for necessary design features that orchestrate distributed control and maintain centralized command. Utilizing the virtual C2 layer as a realistic, operationally relevant testbed will support continuous assessment in a contested distributed environment. Integrating the virtual C2 layer with the decentralized framework gives the Air Force an approach to efficiently operate in a distributed and contested environment.

Government Research and Evaluation Team As part of the CANVAS system design there will be a Simulation Optimization & Assessment (SOA) Sandbox that will be a repository of tangentially related tools and studies managed by the government team. The main goal of this team will be to continuously monitor updates to Air Force CONOPS and development efforts, such as ABMS that support distributed operations. We see this repository as tool for the government research team to swiftly update ongoing development in each CANVAS technical area with key findings related to distributed C2. The sandbox will allow the government team to continue to build on its in-house expertise of distributed C2 processes through simulation, optimization, and assessment of processes executing under given conditions.

· Simulation – The vision for this area is to identify pre-existing modeling and simulation engines that are appropriate for the given problem set. Connecting existing M&S tools to an instance of TA1 or TA2 will allow for thorough testing of new framework components and algorithms. We envision some workflow or component evaluations to be simple and not need a complex simulation engine to test. In these cases, we plan to use existing GOTS software that enables the modeling and simulation of specific workflows.

· Optimization - An initial approach for system-level optimization may assume full system knowledge. A policy at each node is set by a centralized “omni-present” algorithm in which the state is fully observable, and policy can be changed autonomously. This allows the control algorithm to make routing decisions “on-the-fly”. When new policy is adopted, it will take time for to propagate through the system. It is easier to understand such propagation if the submitted state information contains a version of routing policy. A second, more difficult approach, may assume there is a centralized algorithm, which exists as a “node” in the graph. State information is sent to the algorithm as messages via communication links. Policy update messages are sent by the algorithm through the graph to control routing. Since policies cannot be updated instantaneously, the control algorithm needs to have policies in place in advance of routing (nodes will use the last policy they received from the control algorithm). Follow-on approaches may incorporate more advanced capabilities, for example by modeling realistic communication channels or allowing the possibility of disrupted communications.

· Assessment – This area will focus on ongoing studies within distributed C2 as well as previous AFRL studies that focused on workflow execution in distributed environments. The metrics used in these studies will lay the foundation for evaluating emerging Air Force concepts and in-house developed algorithms and applications. In this sense an application is a piece of software that could stand alone or be integrated with existing CANVAS framework. Assessment metrics will include time, utilization, system capacity, efficiency to execute a single workflow or subset of workflows. These same metrics will be used by the government evaluation team to evaluate performance of the CANVAS system.

AFRL anticipates making no TA2 awards for this funding cycle in FY25 or FY26. Note that for the FY25 and FY26 cycle of proposals, the government is seeking proposals for components in white from TA1 only. This is depicted further in Figure 2. White papers that address TA2 or shaded components from TA1 will not be considered in FY25 or FY26. AFRL will likely continue with all performers through the end of Phase 2. This decision will be based upon several factors, including assessments of usability and scalability, the overall system design, a proposed integration and evaluation plan for Phase 2, and the performance of functional components of the system prototype developed during Phase 1. In addition, Phase 1 prototypes will be evaluated for their demonstrated ability to enable workflow execution in a distributed environment with degradation and dynamic constraints. Proposals offering to address both technical areas are encouraged to develop clean interfaces that enable software components to be decoupled and, potentially, integrated with other technical solutions delivering similar functionality.

To measure progress to this end, AFRL expects to have a government led evaluation team develop a set of metrics that can be used to gauge the ability of functional components and the CANVAS system prototype, to facilitate the execution of multiple distributed processes. Proposers are expected to offer metrics of their own, tailored to the specifics of the technology that is being proposed, and explain how they expect these metrics to be effectively collected. Assessment metrics will include time, utilization, system capacity, system efficiency and other metrics that could be used to assess the execution of a subset of workflows.

The government led evaluation team is planning to conduct independent evaluations that will be defined and conducted without conflicts of interest with TA1 and TA2 performers. The evaluators will be responsible for providing scenarios, representative input data, and user roles and responsibilities, as well as for collecting and analyzing results. To support this commitment, it is essential that TA1 and TA2 proposers clearly explain how they intend to evaluate technological progress via internal assessments to meet the CANVAS program vision articulated in this BAA.

For FY25 and FY26, AFRL is seeking whitepapers for TA1 ONLY; further, see Figure 2 on page 7; for FY25 and FY26, AFRL will only consider components in WHITE; TA2 and TA1 shaded components will not be considered for FY25 or FY26. Multiple white papers from a single proposer are allowed. There is NO requirement for a single, all-encompassing, comprehensive white paper.

Technical Point of Contact:

Mr. Ryan Hilliard

AFRL/RISB

525 Brooks Rd Rome, NY 13441-4505 Telephone: (315) 330-2571 Email: ryan.hilliard.3@us.af.mil

IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING:

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 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 cannot identify whether work proposed under this BAA may be considered fundamental research and may award both fundamental and non-fundamental research. 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 awardee is restricted research, a sub-awardee may be conducting fundamental research. In those cases, it is the awardee’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its sub-awardee’s effort is fundamental research.

CLOUD COMPUTING. In accordance with DFARS Clause 252.239-7010, if the development proposed requires storage of Government, or Government-related data on the cloud, offerors need to ensure that the cloud service provider proposed has been granted Provisional Authorization by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) at the level appropriate to the requirement.

II. AWARD INFORMATION:

1. FUNDING: Total funding for this BAA is approximately $24.9M. The anticipated funding to be obligated under this BAA is broken out by fiscal year as follows:

FY25 - $3.4M

FY26 - $3.2M

FY27 - $5.1M

FY28 - $5.3M

FY29 - $7.9M

a. Individual awards will not normally exceed 48 months with dollar values normally ranging from $200K to $3M. There is also the potential to make awards up to any dollar value as long as the value does not exceed the available BAA ceiling amount.

b. The Government reserves the right to select all, part, or none of the proposals received, subject to the availability of funds. All potential Offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice.

2. FORM. Awards of efforts as a result of this announcement will be in the form of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or other transactions depending upon the nature of the work proposed.

3. BAA TYPE: This is a two-step open broad agency announcement. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation.

As STEP ONE – The Government is only soliciting white papers at this time. DO NOT SUBMIT A FORMAL PROPOSAL. Those white papers found to be consistent with the intent of this BAA may be invited to submit a technical and cost proposal. See Section VI of this announcement for further details regarding the proposal.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION:

1. ELIGIBILITY: All qualified offerors who meet the requirements of this BAA may apply.

2. FOREIGN PARTICIPATION/ACCESS:

a. This BAA is closed to foreign participation. This includes both foreign ownership and foreign nationals as employees or subcontractors.

b. Exceptions.

1. Fundamental Research. If the work to be performed is unclassified, fundamental research, this must be clearly identified in the white paper and/or proposal. See Part II, Section I for more details regarding Fundamental Research. Offerors should still identify any performance by foreign nationals at any level (prime contractor or subcontractor) in their proposals. Please specify the nationals’ country of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement. You may be asked to provide additional information during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen’s eligibility to participate on any contract or assistance agreement or other transaction issued as a result of this announcement

2. Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) companies who have mitigation plans/paperwork in place. Proof of approved mitigation documentation must be provided to Amber Buckley, Contracting Officer, at Amber.Buckley@us.af.mil prior to submitting a white paper and/or a proposal. Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) approved mitigation documentation includes one of the following: Board Resolution; Security Control Agreement; Special Security Agreement; Proxy Agreement; and Voting Trust Agreement. In addition to providing the approved mitigation documentation, also provide your CAGE Code and your fully executed DCSA cover letter. Expect at least 10 business days for the Government to review and verify FOCI mitigation documentation. Offerors who do not hold one of the above FOCI mitigation documents must work with DCSA to obtain mitigation documentation prior to being eligible under the BAA. For information on FOCI mitigation, contact DCSA. Additional details can be found at: https://www.dcsa.mil/Industrial-Security/Entity-Vetting-Facility-Clearances-FOCI/Foreign-Ownership-Control-or-Influence/

3. Foreign Nationals as Employees or Subcontractors. Applicable to any effort not considered Fundamental Research. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all employees and/or subcontractors who will work on a resulting contract are eligible to do so. Any employee who is not a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident will be restricted from working on any resultant contract unless prior approval of the Department of State or the Department of Commerce is obtained via a technical assistance agreement or an export license. Violations of these regulations can result in criminal or civil penalties.

c. Information Regarding Non-US Citizens Assigned to this Project

1. Contractor employees requiring access to USAF bases, AFRL facilities, and/or access to U.S. Government Information Technology (IT) networks in connection with the work on contracts, assistance instruments or other transactions awarded under this BAA must be U.S. citizens. For the purpose of base and network access, possession of a permanent resident card ("Green Card") does not equate to U.S. citizenship. This requirement does not apply to foreign nationals approved by the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. State Department under international personnel exchange agreements with foreign governments. It also does not apply to dual citizens who possess US citizenship, to include Naturalized citizens. Any waivers to this requirement must be granted in writing by the Contracting Officer prior to providing access. Specific format for waiver request will be provided upon request to the Contracting Officer. The above requirements are in addition to any other contract requirements related to obtaining a Common Access Card (CAC).

2. For the purposes of Paragraph 1, if an IT network/system does not require AFRL to endorse a contractor's application to said network/system in order to gain access, the organization operating the IT network/system is responsible for controlling access to its system. If an IT network/system requires a U.S. Government sponsor to endorse the application in order for access to the IT network/system, AFRL will only endorse the following types of applications, consistent with the requirements above:

a) Contractor employees who are U.S. citizens performing work under contracts, assistance instruments or other transactions awarded under this BAA.

b) Contractor employees who are non-U.S. citizens and who have been granted a waiver.

Any additional access restrictions established by the IT network/system owner apply.

3. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS 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: FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector; and 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 sub-awardees.

1. Government Entities: 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. 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.

FFRDC and Government entity eligibility will be determined on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

Government agencies interested in performing work related to this announcement should contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC). If resulting discussions reveal a mutual interest, cooperation may be pursued via other vehicles.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: In accordance with FAR 9.5, offerors are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the offerors organization and any proposed team member (sub-awardee, consultant). Under this Section, the offeror is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the solicitation. The disclosure must include the offerors, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan.