CONFERS_BAA_HR001117S0006.pdf

HR001117S0006

Broad Agency Announcement

Consortium For Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing

Operations (CONFERS)

TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

December 20, 2016

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

V. Application Review Information

A. Evaluation Criteria

B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information

A. Selection Notices and Notifications

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

C. Reporting

D. Electronic Systems

E. Federal Advisory Committees

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

• Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

• Funding Opportunity Title – Consortium For Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing Operations (CONFERS)

• Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

• Funding Opportunity Number – HR001117S0006

• Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not Applicable

• Dates o Posting Date: December 20, 2016 o Proposers Day: December 16, 2016 o Questions Due Date: January 6, 2016 o Proposal Due Date and Time: February 6, 2017 by Noon EST

• Concise description of the funding opportunity – Solicitation for research to develop non-binding, consensus-based operational safety standards related to rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) and on-orbit satellite servicing, executed through a collaborative private sector/Government consortium led by an experienced administrator or “Secretariat.”

• Total amount anticipated to be awarded – $2.8M, $800K first year base period, and $2M spread over four (4) option periods.

• Anticipated individual awards – Single award is anticipated.

• Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or cooperative agreement.

• Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001117S0006@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001117S0006

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting research to develop and publish consensus operational safety standards for on-orbit rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) and robotic servicing operations. The awardee will establish and manage a consortium, to include both private sector and government technical experts, and entitled “Consortium For Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing Operations,” or CONFERS.

CONFERS will leverage experience and best practices from both the private sector and Government and will make their published standards publicly available.

DARPA intends to fund CONFERS through an administrator (performer) described as a

“Secretariat” who will oversee the standards research effort and transition CONFERS into a sustained, self-funded organization. Under the contract, the performer is responsible for standing up the consortium, selecting its membership, setting the agenda for the consortium, managing its operations, and leading the standards research process. The performer will hire an accredited Standards Development Organization (SDO) to develop and publish RPO and on-orbit servicing operational safety standards. The performer will prepare and present the published operational safety standards to DARPA on an annual basis.

DARPA envisions that CONFERS will be executed by a lean organization led by an experienced executive director and the support staff necessary to manage consortium operations and conduct standards research. Subject to restrictions on organizational conflicts of interest, qualified entities may include (but are not limited to) non-profit organizations, corporate joint ventures, industry associations, and existing consortia managers. Proposers need not confine themselves to conventional corporate forms and are encouraged to explore innovative constructs.

The Secretariat is responsible for leading the development and publication of non-binding, consensus-based operational safety standards related to RPO and servicing. The Secretariat will research current state-of-the art practices conducted across the private sector and Government, primarily through interaction with subject matter experts serving as CONFERS members. The Secretariat will synthesize the resulting research and collaboration efforts into clearly written operational safety standards. To that end, the Secretariat will identify, hire, and manage an existing qualified Standards Development Organization to codify and publish the standards developed by CONFERS. The SDO does not have to be specifically identified at the time of proposal, but options should be presented with pros and cons.

The Secretariat will also manage CONFERS as a forum where both private sector and

U.S. Government technical experts from multiple relevant entities can discuss plans and issues for anticipated on-orbit servicing in the commercial sector. This is planned to include four separate types of sessions on a recurring basis:

1) USG Caucus: This body will consist of USG members only to discuss internal USG technical and policy issues. This caucus will create a common Government lexicon and build internal Government consensus based on shared expertise. The performer will assist only with logistics and administrative support to execute these USG internal meetings.

2) USG-Private Entity One-on-Ones: Bilateral engagements, as desired by private entities, to discuss their business plans in an environment that protects each entity’s IP

3) CONFERS General Assembly: A combined (multilateral) forum of USG caucus and qualified private sector participants, as vetted by the Secretariat. This is the main focus of CONFERS, and the forum in which the standards development process is conducted.

4) Open Forum: On an annual basis, an open forum will be conducted with any relevant parties that are not part of the CONFERS membership to discuss progress and emerging missions.

DARPA will provide the initial funding necessary to support the Secretariat and consortium operations for up to five years, at which time the CONFERS should transition to a new, self-funded business model. A critical element of the Secretariat is to demonstrate the capability to transition to support by contributions from CONFERS member organizations or another business model. DARPA funding for both the Secretariat and its selected standards development organization is limited to $800K in a one-year base period and a total of $2M spread over option periods, for up to four option years. As part of the proposal, a top-level plan should be provided to show gradual transfer of funding for CONFERS from the Government to the private sector, with full funding by the private sector no later than FY2021. This plan should include allocations of funding for a Standards Development Organization to enable publication of the resulting standards.

Participation of industry or Government members in CONFERS is on a self-funded basis;

i.e., neither DARPA nor the performer serving as Secretariat will reimburse costs imposed/incurred by organizations for their participation.

Background

The continuing proliferation of space operations as “one-way” missions has created a need-driven market for on-orbit servicing. Private entities are developing plans to conduct RPO and servicing operations, which offer tremendous potential opportunities for advancing the utilization of space. The lack of clear technical definitions for safe and responsible operations is an impediment for both investors and insurers pursuing these missions.

Open, consensus-based standards developed collaboratively with the private sector can provide a technical foundation to guide best practices for commercial industry and aid in development of business models. This collaborative approach benefits both the private sector and Government, enabling shared lessons learned. It also prevents any one entity (either Government or commercial) from imposing their view or technology approach, which could limit commercial growth opportunities.

Currently, there are no well-defined operational safety standards utilized by the U.S.

Government to evaluate private (i.e., non-Government) rendezvous and servicing operations. The CONFERS Secretariat will bring together experts from the private sector and Government, leveraging best practices and lessons learned from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and DoD Rendezvous and Proximity Operations and robotic servicing missions and experiments, to develop non-binding, consensus-based commercial standards for safe operational approaches.

DARPA has had an interest in robotic servicing since its successful Orbital Express demonstration in 2007. Currently, DARPA has a program called Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS), which aims to demonstrate servicing of satellites in Geosynchronous orbit (GEO). RSGS is being developed as a public-private partnership, in which it will be commercially owned and operated – driving DARPA’s interest in standards to support commercial servicing operations. Specifically, DARPA seeks to enable their commercial partner to carry on servicing missions after the planned launch and Government experiment in 2021.

NASA has decades of rendezvous and docking experience from extensive manned spaceflight operations and is currently developing its Restore-L mission, which will provide robotic inspection, autonomous rendezvous and grapple, refuel, and relocation capabilities in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). As a result of their combined experience, DARPA and NASA have agreed to provide Government technical expertise and input to CONFERS.

The standards collaboratively developed by CONFERS will provide clear technical recommendations for the safe execution of RPO and servicing operations by the private sector.

Through adherence to these standards, it is envisioned that private sector entities can demonstrate compliance to published operational safety standards with investors, insurers, and others. The creation and publication of these standards is intended to foster U.S. commercial development and assist with transparent international engagement.

Description

This Broad Agency Announcement is intended to solicit proposals detailing research approaches to establish publicly available operational safety standards and best practices for on-orbit commercial rendezvous and proximity operations and robotic servicing operations through a consortium. The approach to develop these standards is envisioned through CONFERS operations under the leadership of the Secretariat.

Proposals should detail the structure and operations of the CONFERS Secretariat and cover its initial years of operating costs. Proposers should consider and describe in detail all aspects of the proposed CONFERS organization, including:

o strategy for researching, developing, and distributing standards for on-orbit servicing;

o management and organizational structure;

o approaches to vetting and encouraging participation of qualified stakeholders;

o future private sector means of funding CONFERS operations; and o plan for accomplishment of tasks listed below.

In pursuit of these objectives, the program envisions that the Secretariat will perform the following tasks (at a minimum):

o Research current state-of-the-art practices and approaches for rendezvous and proximity operations and on-orbit servicing through collaboration with and leadership of CONFERS subject matter experts. Compile and adjudicate disparate approaches and examples into widely applicable operational safety standards.

o Synthesize results of research efforts for publication by a qualified standards development organization (SDO). Hire and manage a qualified SDO to codify consensus best practices, resulting from research, into published standards. Success will be measured by progress achieved.

At the end of Year One, deliver a first revision of a consensus on-orbit servicing standard, vetted by CONFERS members. This first year’s standard is anticipated to focus primarily on rendezvous and proximity operations.

On an annual basis, incrementally deliver more detailed consensus standards published by a qualified standards development organization and vetted by all key CONFERS stakeholders. In Year Two, the standard is anticipated to expand to address issues associated with robotic servicing. In Years Three and Four, the standard is anticipated to include lessons learned from commercial servicing missions that are planned for 2020, as well as address new technologies and techniques that may have been developed.

o Develop and execute a contact plan and outreach strategy for key private sector and Government leaders to ensure their engagement in CONFERS. Report metrics on private sector and Government engagement to the DARPA program manager (PM).

o Establish and execute a process for vetting CONFERS members to ensure that critical membership is achieved and growth continues as the industry evolves. This includes developing a well-defined methodology for establishing qualifications for a core membership group. Initial membership criteria should focus on entities with a credible business interest, prioritizing those pursuing U.S. commercial licenses. Provide regular reporting on membership metrics o Provide and execute a plan for IP protection of stakeholders.

o Develop, maintain, and implement an overall schedule for CONFERS, including both separate and joint sessions for private sector and Government.

Provide administrative and logistics support for meetings of the USG caucus.

Organize and conduct one-on-one meetings between the USG stakeholders group and private sector leaders/stakeholders to discuss individual approaches and address intellectual property sensitivities.

Organize and convene the CONFERS general assembly (USG and private sector) to harmonize Government practices with commercial business plans.

Organize annual forums to allow open discussion beyond the core CONFERS membership group.

o Facilitate collaboration between DARPA (RSGS) and NASA (Restore-L) program offices and commercial partners to assist with executing missions in adherence to the published operational safety standards.

o Develop and execute a course of action to transition CONFERS from Government-provided funding to private sector funding.

Deliver a detailed financial plan showing a budget with revenues, expenditures, and planned private sector sources of revenue. By the end of Year One, this includes providing signed financial letters of intent from key private sector stakeholders that are adequate to cover all expenditures outlined in the financial plan, with contributions beginning at the start of year Three.

From FY17 to FY21, CONFERS operational costs must be shown to gradually transfer from Government to private sector on the following timescale:

• FY17: 100% Government funding

• FY18: 100% Government funding

• FY19: 75% Government, 25% private sector funding

• FY20: 50% Government, 50% private sector funding

• FY21: 25% Government, 75% private sector funding

By 2021, funding for all required CONFERS operations is provided by consortium members or other funding sources as budgeted by the Secretariat.

Proposers must clearly identify what scope of Government-furnished equipment, information, and/or activities (if any) are required by their proposal, including meeting space.

Key Personnel: Secretariat Executive Director

Proposals must identify the Executive Director for the Secretariat, including a resume highlighting qualifications. A well-qualified proposing organization and its executive director will have experience in as many of the following areas as possible:

• Establishment and operation of Government/private sector consortia

• Open consensus-based standards development processes

• Space systems technology and operations, including rendezvous and proximity operations

• Intellectual property (IP) protection

• Government public policy development and U.S. commercial space licensing processes

• Understanding of international space treaties and United Nations Committee on the

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS)

• Department of State and UN Policy Development

• International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

Metrics

The success of the Secretariat will be judged against the following metrics:

Number of relevant, active private sector participants Diversity of relevant industries participating (e.g., communications operators, space system developers, space insurers, etc.)

On-time delivery of standards published and number of signatories

Milestones

Milestone Date (time after Authority To Proceed)

Description

1 1 month Kick-off meeting: Present business plan showing transfer of CONFERS funding (and leadership), qualified participant vetting plan, overall program schedule

2 2 months Conduct first bilateral (USG-Private Entity One-on-One) meetings

3 4 months Determination of qualified participants, and first multilateral meetings (USG/private sector key stakeholder session meeting)

4 6 months First draft standard in coordination 5 12 months Written assessment of relevant private sector leaders engaged in CONFERS 6 12 months Presentation of detailed financial plan and signed financial letters of intent from key private sector stakeholders delivered

7 12 months First CONFERS General Assembly/Open Forum meeting

8 12 months First standard revision published 9 13 months Mid-Term Go/No Go Decision for continued DARPA funding 10 24 months Second standard revision published 11 24 months Second General Assembly/Open Forum meeting 12 36 months Start of private sector partial funding for

CONFERS operations 13 36 months Third General Assembly/Open Forum meeting 14 36 months Third standard revision published 15 48 months Fourth General Assembly/Open Forum meeting 16 48 months Four standard revision published 17 48 months Consortium fully transitioned to private sector

Deliverables

Deliverable Frequency Description Status Report Monthly Status report, including: Research and technical progress, current CONFERS schedule, funding status, membership participation summary, Secretariat staffing, and key accomplishments

Meeting Minutes After each USG caucus, bilateral meeting, Detailed summary of activity accomplished during the meeting multilateral meeting, and open forum

Operational Safety Standards

Annually Standard published by qualified SDO on an annual basis, reflecting the current state of development

Financial Plan Updated annually Detailed financial plan showing transfer of funding from Government to private sector.

After the first year of operation, must include signed financial letters of intent from key private sector stakeholders to reflect needed funds. Updated annually to reflect actual expenses incurred and projected.

Office Location and Staff

• Office and staff location must be within the continental United States. Note that frequent meetings will be required in the Washington, DC local area to facilitate discussions with relevant USG stakeholders.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

Although multiple awards are possible, only one award is anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The period of performance under the award shall be no longer than one year for the base period, and up to four additional one-year periods for each option.

The awardee will be expected to have a kick-off meeting in Arlington, Virginia immediately upon award and shall submit monthly technical and financial reports.

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

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.4, “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposals from award consideration, should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract or cooperative agreement.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

B. Fundamental Research

It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines fundamental research as follows:

‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein may be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research and proposers not intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research may present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Based on the nature of the performer and the nature of the work, the Government anticipates that some awards will include restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

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. This clause can be found at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

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

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the awardee is restricted research, a subawardee may be conducting fundamental research. In those cases, it is the awardee’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subawardee’s effort is fundamental research

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

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

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

a) FFRDCs

FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions: (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and their compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

All proposers are expected to address transition; transition is part of the evaluation criteria in Section V.A. However, given their special status, FFRDCs should describe how and when a proposed technology/system will transition to which Non-FFRDC organization(s).

b) Government Entities

Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. 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.

c) Authority and Eligibility

At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and Government entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

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

Due to the intended collaboration with U.S. industry and potential sensitivity of satellite servicing hardware and techniques, the Secretariat is restricted to entities capable of handling ITAR-restricted materials.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements

In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the BAA. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposer’s judgment and to prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy

In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.

Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.

If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the proposal must include:

• The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

• The prime contract number;

• Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and

• An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures

In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the BAA evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.

If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

Sole entities with a business interest in satellite servicing (e.g., individual satellite developers or individual satellite communications providers) will be viewed less favorably than industry associations or joint ventures due to potential for conflicts of interest between the standards promoted and individual entities’ business plans.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

See “Funding Opportunity Description” on page 4.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

Potential proposers should be eligible to obtain a Top Secret security clearance in order to obtain full cognizance of historical USG space activities and policies. Proposers can include industry associations or joint ventures of companies, but proposals from single entity developers or operators of on-orbit servicing systems may pose a conflict of interest that make them ineligible for award.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Copies http://www.darpa.mil/ of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

1. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of three parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. Bracketed numbers before each section denote recommended page limits.

Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and managerial issues. Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to

DARPA.

NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

(1) Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001117S0006);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

BUSINESS,” “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” “OTHER SMALL

BUSINESS,” “HBCU,” “MI,” “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” OR “OTHER

NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

(10) Total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any);

and

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

(2) Section II: Summary of Proposal

A. {1} Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation. (In the proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III of the Technical and Management Proposal.)

B. {2} Innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches. For CONFERS, this section should specifically describe the unique benefits of the proposing organization and any innovative consortium management techniques to be implemented.

C. {1} Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization.

a. Technical deliverables, such as status reports, meeting minutes, and operational safety standards

b. Technology Transition deliverables, such as the business case, transition story, and financial commitments from CONFERS members

Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.2.g of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

D. {1} General discussion of other research in this area.

E. {1} A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year. DARPA requires key personnel identified in the proposal to be assigned as proposed, and the resulting contract/agreement will indicate no substitution shall be made without prior approval of the Government.

(3) Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

A. {6} Statement of Work (SOW) – In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

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

• Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution

(prime, sub, team member, by name, etc.);

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

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

• Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (to be performed by either a awardee or subawardee) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

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

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

B. {6} Description of the process, standards, and expected consortium commercial transition path to supplement information included in the summary of the proposal. This should also address specifics of standards development organization selection criteria, potential financial models for commercialization, and means of maintaining CONFERS members’ intellectual property and managing ITAR-restricted material. See also Section IV.B.2.g of this BAA, “Intellectual Property.”

C. {4} Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas.

D. {1} Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort (as applicable).

E. {2} Detail support enhancing that of Summary of Proposal, including formal teaming agreements which are required to execute this program (as applicable).

F. {2} Provide description of milestone cost and accomplishments.

b) Volume II, Cost Proposal

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:

(1) Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001117S0006);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

BUSINESS,” “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” “OTHER SMALL

BUSINESS,” “HBCU,” “MI,” “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” OR “OTHER

NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

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

(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s);

(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

(14) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

(15) Date proposal was prepared;

(16) DUNS number;

(17) TIN number;

(18) CAGE Code;

(19) Subawardee Information; and

(20) Proposal validity period.

(2) Additional Cost Proposal Information

(a) Supporting Cost and Pricing Data The proposer should include supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates and should include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation. The Government strongly encourages that tables included in the cost proposal also be provided in an editable (e.g., MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact to allow traceability of the cost proposal numbers across the prime and subcontractors.

(b) Cost Breakdown Information and Format

Detailed cost breakdown to include:

• Total program costs broken down by major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs; overhead charges, etc.) and further broken down by task and phase

• Major program tasks by fiscal year

• An itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases.

• Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs

(vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be provided.

• An itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined by FAR

2.101 – Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs (vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be provided, including a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding for prime and all sub-awardees.

• A summary of projected funding requirements by month

• The source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing

• Identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter experts, etc.)

Tables included in the cost proposal in editable (e.g. MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact. NOTE: If PDF submissions differ from the Excel submission, the PDF will take precedence.

Per FAR 15.403-4, certified cost or pricing data shall be required if the proposer is seeking a procurement contract award per the referenced threshold, unless the proposer requests and is granted an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. Certified cost or pricing data” are not required if the proposer proposes an award instrument other than a procurement contract (e.g., a cooperative agreement).

(c) Subawardee Proposals

The awardee is responsible for compiling and providing all subawardee proposals for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)/Agreements Officer (AO), as applicable. Subawardee proposals should include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements. Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonable be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each.

All proprietary subawardee proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the awardee’s proposal and which cannot be uploaded with the proposed awardees’s proposal, shall be provided to the Government either by the awardee or by the subawardee organization when the proposal is submitted. Subawardee proposals submitted to the Government by the proposed awardee should be submitted in a sealed envelope that the proposed awardee will not be allowed to view. The subawardee must provide the same number of copies to the PCO/GO/AO as is required of the awardee. See Section IV.B.3.a. of this BAA for proposal submission information.

2. Additional Proposal Information

a) Proprietary Markings

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.” NOTE: “Confidential” is a classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary business information.

b) Security Information

(1) Unclassified Submissions

DARPA anticipates that submissions received under this BAA will be unclassified.

However, should a proposer wish to submit classified information, an unclassified e-mail must be sent to the BAA mailbox requesting submission instructions from the Technical Office PSO.

If a determination is made that the award instrument may result in access to classified information, a SCG and/or DD Form 254 will be issued by DARPA and attached as part of the award.

c) Human Research Subjects/Animal Use

Proposers that anticipate involving Human Research Subjects or Animal Use must comply with the approval procedures detailed at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

d) Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

Proposers that do not have a Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) complaint accounting system considered adequate for determining accurate costs that are negotiating a cost- type procurement contract must complete an SF 1408. For more information on CAS compliance, see http://www.dcaa.mil/cas.html. To facilitate this process, proposers should complete the SF 1408 found at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778 and submit the completed form with the proposal. To complete the form, check the boxes on the second page, then provide a narrative explanation of your accounting system to supplement the checklist on page one. For more information, see http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_system_adequacy_checklist.html.

e) Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 637(d)) and FAR 19.702(a)(1), each proposer who submits a contract proposal and includes subcontractors might be required to submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal. The plan format is outlined in

FAR 19.704.

f) Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 749d)/FAR 39.2

All electronic and information technology acquired or created through this BAA must satisfy the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 749d)/FAR 39.2.

g) Intellectual Property

All proposers must provide a good faith representation that the proposer either owns or possesses the appropriate licensing rights to all intellectual property that will be utilized under the proposed effort.

(1) For Procurement Contracts

Proposers responding to this BAA requesting procurement contracts will need to complete the certifications at DFARS 252.227-7017. See http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa http://www.dcaa.mil/cas.html http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778 http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_system_adequacy_checklist.html us/additional-baa for further information. If no restrictions are intended, the proposer should state “none.” The table below captures the requested information:

Technical Data Computer

Software To be Furnished With

Restrictions

Summary of Intended Use in the Conduct of the Research

Basis for Assertion

Asserted Rights Category

Name of Person Asserting

Restrictions

(LIST) (NARRATIVE) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)

(2) For All Non-Procurement Contracts

Proposers responding to this BAA requesting a Cooperative Agreement shall follow the applicable rules and regulations governing these various award instruments, but, in all cases, should appropriately identify any potential restrictions on the Government’s use of any Intellectual Property contemplated under the award instrument in question. This includes both Noncommercial Items and Commercial Items. Proposers are encouraged use a format similar to that described in Paragraph (1). above. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state “NONE.”

h) System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements

All proposers must be registered in SAM unless exempt per FAR 4.1102. FAR 52.204-7, “System for Award Management” and FAR 52.204-13, “System for Award Management Maintenance” are incorporated into this BAA. See www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa for further information.

3. Submission Information

DARPA will acknowledge receipt of all submissions and assign an identifying control number that should be used in all further correspondence regarding the submission. DARPA intends to use electronic mail correspondence regarding HR001117S0006. Submissions may not be submitted by fax or e-mail; any so sent will be disregarded.

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

For proposal submission dates, see Part I., Overview Information. Submissions received after these dates and times may not be reviewed.

The proposal must be received at DARPA/ TTO, 675 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203-2114 (Attn.: HR001117S0006) on or before February 6, 2017 at Noon Eastern Time in order to be considered during the initial round of selections; however, proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to six months (180 days) from date of posting on FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov) or Grants.gov. The ability to review and select proposals submitted after the initial round deadline specified in the BAA or due date otherwise specified by DARPA will be contingent on availability of funds. Proposals submitted after the due date specified in the BAA or due date otherwise specified by DARPA may be selected. Proposers are warned that the likelihood of available funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the initial closing date deadline.

a) Proposal Submission

Refer to Section VI.A.1 for how DARPA will notify proposers as to whether or not their proposal has been selected for potential award.

(1) For Proposers Requesting Cooperative Agreements

Proposers requesting cooperative agreements may submit proposals through one of the following methods: (1) hard copy mailed directly to DARPA; or (2) electronic upload per the instructions at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply-for-grants.html. Cooperative agreement proposals may not be submitted through any other means.