HR001117S0013.pdf

HR001117S0013

Microsystems Technology Office Broad Agency Announcement

Efficient Ultra-Compact Laser Integrated Devices (EUCLID)

HR001117S0013

December 19, 2016

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background B. Program Description C. Program Structure D. Schedule E. Milestones and Deliverables

1. Phase I: 1-12 months after contract award

2. Phase II Option: 13-24 months after contract award

F. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information II. Award Information

A. General Award Information B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

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

2. Non-U.S. Organizations and/or Individuals B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching D. Other Eligibility Criteria

1. Collaborative Efforts IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission

1. Full Proposal Format

2. Proprietary Information

3. Security Information

a. Unclassified Submissions

b. Classified Submissions

c. Both Classified and Unclassified Submissions

4. Human Research Subjects/Animal Use

5. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

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

7. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

8. Intellectual Property

a. For Procurement Contracts

9. Patents

10. System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements

11. Funding Restrictions

C. Submission Information

1. Submission Dates and Times

a. Full Proposal Date

b. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

2. Proposal Submission Information

3. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

2. Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience

3. Realism of Proposed Schedule

4. Cost Realism

5. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

6. Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition

B. Review and Selection Process

1. Review Process

2. Handling of Source Selection Information

3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

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

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. FAR and DFARS Clauses

3. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

4. Representations and Certifications

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

2. i-Edison

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

ATTACHMENT 1: Cost Volume Proposer Checklist ATTACHMENT 2: Proposal Summary Slide Template

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Microsystems Technology Office (MTO)

Funding Opportunity Title – Efficient Ultra-Compact Laser Integrated Diodes

(EUCLID)

Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001117S0013 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not Applicable Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time) o Posting Date: December 19, 2016 o FAQ Submission Deadline: January 31, 2017 o Proposal Due Date: February 15, 2017 o Estimated period of performance start: July 2017

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The DARPA EUCLID program is soliciting research proposals for the development of highly efficient, ultra-compact, fiber-coupled laser diode modules suitable for pumping high power fiber lasers.

Anticipated Funding Available for Award: It is anticipated that no more than $6M will be awarded.

Anticipated individual awards – One or more awards are anticipated.

Anticipated funding type - 6.3 Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract Agency contact o Dr. Joseph Mangano, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: HR001117S0013@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: HR001117S0013

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:name@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. This BAA is being issued, and any resultant selection will be made, using the procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016. Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing. Proposals received as a result of this BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process.

DARPA BAAs are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website, http://www.fbo.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

The Microsystems Technology Office at DARPA seeks innovative proposals which develop, design, build and test a highly efficient, ultra-compact, fiber-coupled laser diode module assembly for pumping high power fiber lasers. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

A. Background

High-energy laser (HEL) technology is of interest to the Military Services for its potential to provide new and enhanced capabilities such as silent engagement, deep magazine, scalable effects, and reduced logistics burdens. Until recently, these systems have been too large and heavy to be widely deployed on military platforms.

Fiber laser arrays are a leading candidate technology for integration into mission capable platforms. Fiber laser arrays offer high electrical-to-optical efficiency (>35%), excellent beam quality (<1.2x diffraction limited) and modular, scalable architectures which have flexibility of producing systems with scalable output powers tailored to the appropriate platform mission and payload. Recent efforts to reduce the size and weight of fiber amplifiers and related HEL technology have shown promise and can enable important applications on larger platforms such as the AF AC-130 gunship or Army HEMMIT. However, further size, weight and power (SWaP) reduction of these systems is needed to increase laser power on larger platforms and enable missions on smaller platforms. More widespread deployment of these laser systems for a broad spectrum of military missions will stimulate larger market volume and lower unit costs.

The laser diode pump modules (DPMs) which power the fiber laser amplifiers are presently a significant driver of system-level SWaP. Low module efficiency increases demand on the power system and the amount of waste heat that the thermal management system must dissipate.

Because many modules are needed to power a single fiber amplifier, low packing density of the modules leads to a larger integrating structure and more electrical, cooling, and optical overhead.

However, primary development drivers to date have been commercial market priorities, continuous operation for long time periods and long life rather than low size/weight and high http://www.fbo.gov/ efficiency. As a result, there is opportunity for significant size and weight reduction while increasing electrical-to-optical efficiency of DPMs.

B. Program Description

The Efficient, Ultra-Compact, Laser-Integrated Diodes (EUCLID) program seeks to drive down the size and weight of diode pump module (DPM) technology while increasing electrical-to-optical efficiency and optimizing modules for dense packaging. To enable significant further near-term reduction in the SWaP of fiber laser arrays, the EUCLID BAA seeks proposals to develop and demonstrate DPMs consistent with SWaP, efficiency, and system compatibility metrics listed in Table 2. Desired DPMs would be capable of being densely packaged with other identical modules in a configuration consistent with integration into line-replaceable high-power fiber amplifier assemblies. DPM output power of ≥650 W is desired to minimize packaging and overall system SWaP. The outputs of such modules, when combined, should also allow for efficiently pumping as wide a range of high power fiber amplifier output powers (between 1 kW and 3 KW) as possible. This would provide the flexibility to optimally tailor the array size and output power for various DoD HEL applications. As an option in Phase II, up to six modules would be produced and delivered to a Government laboratory for performance verification and tested on a breadboard with two, 1.6 kW coherently combinable fiber amplifiers or one ≥3.2 kW coherently combinable fiber amplifier.

Table 2: Diode Pump Module and Pump Assembly Metrics

Parameter Diode Pump Module (DPM) Value Pump Assembly (PA) Value CW Output Power* ≥650 W individual module output guided in output fiber core ≥3900 Watts. Possible module configurations: 1) Pump two fiber amplifiers each delivering 1.6 kW coherently combinable output at 85% optical-to-optical efficiency, or 2) Pump one fiber amplifier delivering ≥3.2 kW coherently combinable output at 85% optical-to-optical efficiency. DPM concepts that are consistent with only one or with both of these pumping configurations will be considered.

1 Second Average CW Output Power Stability*

No more than ±2% variation at full power within the DPM design output spectrum over a 3 minute runtime

No more than ±2% variation at full power within the PA design output spectrum at proposed over a 3 minute runtime

Electrical to Optical Efficiency*

≥60% within DPM design spectrum for individual modules at design output power based on pump power within the core of the delivery fiber.

In the case of a DPM cooled with a single phase liquid this would be for:

15 degrees C coolant inlet temperature

Coolant output temperature of no less than 22 degrees C at 650 W DPM output

≥58% within PA design spectrum averaged over modules in the PA operating at design output power, based on pump power within the core of the delivery fiber(s). In the case of single phase liquid cooling approaches this would be for:

15 degrees C coolant inlet temperature

Coolant output temperature of no less than 36 degrees C at 3900 W PA output

Specific Volume* ≤0.31 cc/W (includes cooling plenum)

≤0.5 cc/W (includes cooling plenums and inter-module cooling and infrastructure)

Specific Dry Mass* ≤0.31 g/W (includes cooling plenum)

≤0.43 g/W (includes cooling plenums and inter-module cooling and infrastructure)

Design Output Spectrum

976 ± 0.5 nm center wavelength, <4nm full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), >95% power within ±4nm of center wavelength

976 ± 0.5 nm center wavelength, <4nm full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), >95% power within ±4.5 nm of 976 nm

Turn-on Time Traceable to PA design metric 90 ms to 95% of PA design output power within PA design spectrum

Delivery Fiber Approaches that use delivery fiber other than traditional <225 µm, <0.22 NA will be considered, but must be compatible with coupling pump light efficiently (>97%) into Yb-doped gain fiber with <400 µm pump cladding diameter, <0.46 NA, to provide coherently combinable outputs at 85% optical-to-optical efficiency, for as broad a range of coherently combinable output powers (e.g., 1.1 KW, 1.6 kW, 2.2 kW, ≥3 kW) as possible.

Quantitative documentation of the feasibility and combining requirements of such approaches is strongly encouraged.

Coolants and Cooling Systems

Consistent with operation on fighter aircraft (e.g., F-15 or F-16). Compliant with fighter aircraft mil-specs and standard formulations that minimize logistics burden are specifically preferred, but non-standard formulations, not typically subject to aircraft material restrictions, will also be considered. For example the coolant must remain fluid with minimal viscosity change to at least -30 degrees C. It should also remain free of bacteria contamination for extended periods without treatment.

Thermal management approaches that rely entirely on single-phase liquid coolants for heat transfer from diodes and heat removal from DPMs are preferred, as their design implications at the system level are well understood and can be configured to function in fighter aircraft operating environments.

Approaches that are less mature in the context of fiber laser arrays, such as two-phase cooling, will also be considered. Documentation quantifying the likely system level impacts of such approaches is strongly encouraged. In the case of liquid-to-gas phase cooling, for example, documentation might include the following impacts:

DPM and cooling performance during randomly-oriented (up to 4-g) fighter maneuvers

SWaP roll-ups of all key DPM-related thermal management system components (including reservoirs for liquid and gas phases of coolants, compressors or condensers, etc.) for a nominal 50 kW fiber laser array for each of several run-times of interest: 20, 60 and 180 seconds

Turn-on time to objective full-power, stable, DPM performance as well as turn-off times

All assumptions that have other system level implications (e.g., assumed cooling/vapor line pressure, assumed initial temperature ranges of coolant and diode, etc.) should also be quantitatively described.

Interfaces Compatible with high-density packaging and integration into an Ultra-low SWaP Fiber Amplifier assembly. Detachable DPM delivery fiber approaches are preferred for field replaceability. Constraints will be provided as GFI after any contract award(s).

Lifetime >100 hours at proposed full power with no greater than 5% power degradation

*Power and efficiency include only usable pump power in the core of the fiber. Measurement system will include a high efficiency mode stripper.

EUCLID seeks to address two key challenges: (1) Integration compatibility of the laser DPMs into densely packaged pump assemblies (PAs) suitable for pumping fiber laser amplifiers, and

(2) ensuring that there is a well-defined path to near term low-volume production.

EUCLID seeks to develop DPMs that can be densely packaged and are compatible with the scalable, modular high-power fiber laser array architecture pioneered in the DARPA FLASH program. Proposers should plan to deliver, at the Final Program Review (FPR), a critical design for fully packaged PAs of up to six DPMs, complete with power and coolant delivery to the

DPMs. The PA designs should support pumping two 1.6 kW coherently combinable fiber amplifiers or one ≥3.2 kW coherently combinable fiber amplifier. Information on the FLASH fiber laser array architecture, FLASH low-SWaP fiber amplifier and DPM assemblies, and FLASH concepts for future ultra-low SWaP fiber amplifier and DPM assemblies will be available upon request to prospective proposers, subject to ITAR restrictions. Proposers should email HR001117S0013@darpa.mil to request this information.

DPM manufacturability is critical to enabling near-term development and demonstration of lower SWaP fiber laser arrays. As an example, consider the production scale for 650 W DPMs needed for a single 50 kW fiber laser array. Pumping this array requires ~62.4 kW of diode pump power after accounting for optical-to-optical conversion and transmission losses.

Consequently, more than 62.4 kW of DPM power would need to be delivered to the fiber laser array developer within reasonable lead-time for integration. Thus the program seeks to develop a detailed manufacturing plan which describes the path to production and delivery, within one year, adequate numbers of DPMs and PAs (and spares) to build and maintain a conceptual ultra-low SWaP fiber laser array, relevant details of which would be available as GFI, subject to applicable ITAR and classification restrictions.

C. Program Structure

EUCLID will be a 24-month effort consisting of two, one-year phases. Phase I Base will consist of component technology development and detailed engineering design of a compact, efficient, densely packageable DPM meeting the metrics outlined in Table 2. This should include any technical risk reduction tasks required to support the projected performance and SWaP of DPM.

A preliminary engineering design for a densely packaged PA meeting the metrics outlined in Table 2 will also be developed in Phase I. This will be followed by a Phase II Option to build and test sufficient DPMs to pump a pair of fiber laser amplifiers to provide two 1.6 kW coherently-combinable outputs or to pump one fiber laser amplifier to provide ≥3.2 kW coherently combinable output, with 85% optical-to-optical efficiency. Component technologies and a detailed engineering design for a densely packaged PA meeting the metrics in Table 2 will also be developed in Phase II. This should include any technical risk reduction tasks required to support the projected performance and SWaP of the PA. All proposals must include comprehensive budget responses to both Phases. Phase II should be proposed as an Option.

mailto:HR001117S0013@darpa.mil

D. Schedule

FY17 FY18 FY19

Task

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Diode Pump Module Reviews and Milestones

Pump Assembly Design Reviews

E. Milestones and Deliverables

1. Phase I: 1-12 months after contract award

a) DPM Preliminary Design Preview (PDR) Milestone: Engineering design review demonstrating that the proposed DPM design will meet the proposed performance metrics at both the module and assembly level. Technology development status and path to CDR. Risk assessment and reduction.

b) DPM Critical Design Review (CDR)/PA Preliminary Design Review/End-of- Phase Review Milestone: Detailed critical engineering design of a DPM meeting the metrics in

Table 2.

Milestone: Preliminary design of a PA meeting the metrics in Table 2.

Deliverable: Manufacturability report showing the path and costs to produce enough modules to provide up to 100 kW of pump power within one year after program close. Per-module cost information and production schedule will be required.

c) Deliverable: Monthly technical and financial status reports.

2. Phase II Option: 13-24 months after contract award

a) Fabrication Readiness Review (FRR) Milestone: Demonstrate fabrication readiness of DPMs including tooling fixtures and assembly procedures.

Award D e m o n s t r a t i o n

P h a s e

I I

O p t i o n

D e c i s i o n

Kickoff PDR CDR FRR

Final Review and End of Phase 1

PDR

CDREnd of Phase 1 Phase II Option Decision

b) Enough prototype DPMs to efficiently pump two 1.6 kW fiber laser amplifiers or one ≥3.2 kW fiber amplifier Milestone: Demonstrate objective SWaP and electrical-to-optical efficiency of each of the DPMs when cooled by an aircraft compliant coolant at an inlet temperature of 15 degrees C.

c) PA Critical Design Review (CDR)/Final Program Review Milestone: Critical design of a PA meeting the metrics in table 2.

d) Deliverable: Monthly technical and financial status reports.

h) Deliverable: Final technical report.

F. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information

All GFI listed below will be provided prior to the kick-off meeting.

a) Relevant FLASH low-SWaP fiber-laser-array demo architecture and FLASH PA and fiber assembly design information

b) Relevant FLASH ultra-low SWaP fiber laser architecture concept information

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

One or more awards are 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 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 at the end of one or more of the phases, as applicable.

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see section labeled “Application Review Information,” Sec. V.), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. 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.2., “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. Proposals identified for negotiation will result in a procurement contract.

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 either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the contractor to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

III. Eligibility Information

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

A. Eligible Applicants

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.

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.

2. Non-U.S. Organizations and/or Individuals

DARPA anticipates that technology developed in this program would, if it meets program objectives, become subject to export control laws, specifically to international trafficking in arms regulations (ITAR). 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. Proposers should be aware of recent changes in export control laws. Proposers are responsible for ensuring compliance with all International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR)(22 CFR §120 et. seq.)

requirements, as applicable.

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.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype, see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

1. Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged.

IV. Application and Submission Information

PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE LOWERED

AND/OR PROPOSALS REJECTED IF PROPOSAL PREPARATION (PROPOSAL FORMAT,

CONTENT, ETC.) AND/OR SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED.

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

1. Full Proposal Format

All full proposals must be in the format given below. Proposals shall consist of two volumes:

Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal (3 sections), and Volume II – Cost Proposal (3 sections). All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables and charts.

The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. Section II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, shall not exceed 45 pages. Other supporting materials may be submitted in the form of an appendix or appendices to the technical proposal.

The materials must consist only of supporting evidence directly relevant to quantitatively establishing the innovative claims or feasibility of the proposed technical approach. Details of hardware delivered in previous programs, related internal research and development work, technical reports or papers, or other support materials demonstrating the feasibility of the approach are acceptable; marketing brochures, sales literature, or extensions of the technical proposal will not be considered. Any appendix or appendices with supporting material shall not exceed 50 pages. There is no page limit for Volume II, Cost Proposal. All full proposals must be written in English.

A summary slide of the proposed effort, in PowerPoint format, should be submitted with the proposal. A template slide is provided as Attachment 2 to the BAA. Submit this PowerPoint file in addition to Volumes I and II of your full proposal. This summary slide does not count towards the total page count.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/

a. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001117S0013);

(2) Technical area(s);

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

Large Organization, Small Disadvantaged Organization, Other Small Organization, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, Other Nonprofit;

(5) Proposer’s internal 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 (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), 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.

The transmittal letter should identify the BAA number, the proposal by name, and the proposal reference number (if any), and should be signed by an individual from the prime organization who is authorized to submit proposals to the Government.

Section II. Detailed Proposal Information

A. Technical Approach Include detailed technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of the technical metrics quantified in Table 2 in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation. As stated in Table 2, thorough and quantitative descriptions of non-traditional pump combiners and thermal management architectures with their anticipated impact in a fully integrated, high energy laser system are strongly encouraged. Proposers must include adequate detail and justification for any performer defined metrics and goals. In addition, a detailed analysis of how the proposed approach will meet both the DARPA and performer defined metrics must be provided. Any materials supporting the technical approach or innovative claims included in an appendix to the technical proposal should be referenced herein.

B. Statement of Work (SOW)

In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the effort. The SOW must not include proprietary information. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

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

3. Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution (prime, sub, team member, by name, etc.);

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

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

6. Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (prime or subcontracted) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

Note: Each Phase of the program must be separately defined in the SOW. Include a SOW for each subcontractor and/or consultant in the Cost Proposal Volume.

C. Risk Mitigation Plan Plan detailing risks and proposed activities to mitigate or respond to these risks. The risk plan should include a metric showing the probability of the risk occurring and another metric to capture the impact to the program. The impact of risks should be tied to the overall program objectives. This section should be no more than 2 pages long.

D. State-of-the-Art Comparison Comparison between the proposed work and the state-of-the-art along with a general discussion of other research in this area. This section should be no more than 2 pages long.

Any supporting materials included in an appendix to the technical proposal should be referenced herein.

E. Proposer Accomplishments Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas. This section should be no more than 1-page long. Any supporting materials included in an appendix to the technical proposal should be referenced herein.

F. Facilities Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort and any special or precision tooling available. This section should be no more than 1-page long.

G. Teaming Description of the formal teaming agreements which are required to execute this program.

H. Schedules and measurable milestones Schedules and measurable milestones for the proposed research. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.) Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options.

I. Results and Technology Transfer Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer. This should also address mitigation of life-cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section IV.B.10, “Intellectual Property.”

Section III. Additional Information

Information in this section may include a brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers may be included in the submission.

b. Volume II, Cost Proposal

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:

Section I. Administrative

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001117S0013);

(2) Technical area(s);

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

Large Organization, Small Disadvantaged Organization, Other Small Organization, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, Other Nonprofit;

(5) Proposer’s internal 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 (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available);

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), and electronic mail (if available);

(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)

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

(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s), if any, by government fiscal year;

(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) Subcontractor Information;

(20) Proposal validity period; AND

(21) Any Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, other such approved rate information, or such documentation that may assist in expediting negotiations (if available).

Attachment 1, the Cost Volume Proposer Checklist, must be included with the coversheet of the Cost Proposal.

Section II. Detailed Cost Information (Prime and Subcontractors)

The proposers,’ to include eligible FFRDCs,’ cost volume shall provide cost and pricing information (See Note 1), or other than cost or pricing information if the total price is under the referenced threshold, in sufficient detail to substantiate the program price proposed (e.g., realism and reasonableness). In doing so, the proposer shall provide, for both the prime and each subcontractor, a summary cost breakdown and a detailed cost breakdown by phase (if multiple phases are proposed), technical task/sub-task, and month for each technical area proposed to (Government fiscal year). The breakdown/s shall include, at a minimum, the following major cost item along with associated backup documentation:

Total program cost broken down by major cost items:

A. Direct Labor A breakout clearly identifying the individual labor categories with associated labor hours and direct labor rates, as well as a detailed Basis-of-Estimate (BOE) narrative description of the methods used to estimate labor costs;

B. Indirect Costs Including Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General and Administrative Expense, Cost of Money, Fee, etc. (must show base amount and rate);

C. Travel Provide the purpose of the trip, number of trips, number of days per trip, departure and arrival destinations, number of people, etc.;

D. Other Direct Costs Itemized with costs; back-up documentation is to be submitted to support proposed costs;

E. Material/Equipment

(i) For IT and equipment purchases, include a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding.

(ii) A priced Bill-of-Material (BOM) clearly identifying, for each item proposed, the quantity, unit price, the source of the unit price (i.e., vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc.), the type of property (i.e., material, equipment, special test equipment, information technology, etc.), and a cross-reference to the Statement of Work (SOW) task/s that require the item/s. At time of proposal submission, any item that exceeds $1,000 must be supported with basis-of-estimate (BOE) documentation such as a copy of catalog price lists, vendor quotes or a written engineering estimate (additional documentation may be required during negotiations, if selected).

(iii) If seeking a procurement contract and items of Contractor Acquired Property are proposed, exclusive of material, the proposer shall clearly demonstrate that the inclusion of such items as Government Property is in keeping with the requirements of FAR Part 45.102.

In accordance with FAR 35.014, “Government property and title,” it is the Government’s intent that title to all equipment purchased with funds available for research under any resulting contract will vest in the acquiring nonprofit institution (e.g., Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education and Nonprofit Organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research) upon acquisition without further obligation to the Government. Any such equipment shall be used for the conduct of basic and applied scientific research. The above transfer of title to all equipment purchased with funds available for research under any resulting contract is not allowable when the acquiring entity is a for-profit organization;

however, such organizations can, in accordance with FAR 52.245-1(j), be given priority to acquire such property at its full acquisition cost.

F. Consultants If consultants are to be used, proposer must provide a copy of the consultant’s proposed SOW as well as a signed consultant agreement or other document which verifies the proposed loaded daily / hourly rate and any other proposed consultant costs (e.g. travel);

G. Subcontracts Itemization of all subcontracts. Additionally, the prime contractor is responsible for compiling and providing, as part of its proposal submission to the Government, subcontractor proposals prepared at the same level of detail as that required by the prime. Subcontractor proposals include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements. If seeking a procurement contract, the prime contractor shall provide a cost reasonableness analysis of all proposed subcontractor costs/prices. Such analysis shall indicate the extent to which the prime contractor has negotiated subcontract costs/prices and whether any such subcontracts are to be placed on a sole-source basis.

All proprietary subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime, which cannot be uploaded to the DARPA BAA website (https://baa.darpa.mil, BAAT) as part of the proposer’s submission, shall be made immediately available to the Government, upon request, under separate cover (i.e., mail, electronic/email, etc.), either by the proposer or by the subcontractor organization. This does not relieve the proposer from the requirement to include, as part of their submission (via BAAT), subcontract proposals that do not include proprietary pricing information (rates, factors, etc.).

https://baa.darpa.mil/

A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), or similar budgetary estimate, is not considered a fully qualified subcontract cost proposal submission. Inclusion of a ROM, or similar budgetary estimate, or failure to provide required subcontract proposals, may result in the full proposal being deemed non-compliant or evaluation ratings may be lowered; AND

H. Cost-Sharing The amount of any industry cost-sharing (the source and nature of any proposed cost-sharing should be discussed in the narrative portion of the cost volume).

Note 1:

(a) “Cost or Pricing Data” as defined in FAR 15.403-4 shall be required if the proposer is seeking a procurement contract per the referenced threshold, unless the proposer requests and is granted an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. Per DFARS 215.408(5), DFARS 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, applies to all proposers/proposals seeking a FAR-based award (contract).

(b) In accordance with DFARS 15.403-1(4)(D), DoD has waived cost or pricing data requirements for nonprofit organizations (including educational institutions) on cost-reimbursement-no-fee contracts. In such instances where the waiver stipulated at DFARs 15.403-1(4)(D) applies, proposers shall submit information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the Government to determine price reasonableness and cost realism;

and cost or pricing data from subcontractors that are not nonprofit organizations when the subcontractor’s proposal exceeds the cost and pricing data threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1).

(c) Per Section 873 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub L. 114-92), “Pilot Program For Streamlining Awards For Innovative Technology Projects,” small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors (as defined therein) are alleviated from submission of certified cost and pricing data for new contract awards valued at less than $7,500,000. In such instances where this “waiver” applies, proposers seeking a FAR-based contract shall submit information other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the Government to determine price reasonableness and cost realism; and certified cost or pricing data from subcontractors that are not small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors when such subcontract proposals exceed the cost and pricing data threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1).

Note 2:

Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide the aforementioned cost breakdown as an editable MS Excel spreadsheet, inclusive of calculations formulae, with tabs (material, travel, ODC’s) provided as necessary. The Government also requests and recommends that the Cost Proposal include MS Excel file(s) that provide traceability between the Bases of Estimate (BOEs) and the proposed costs across all elements and phases. This includes the calculations and adjustments that are utilized to generate the Summary Costs from the source labor hours, labor costs, material costs, etc. input data. It is requested that the costs and Subcontractor proposals be readily traceable to the Prime Cost Proposal in the provided MS Excel file(s) – although this is not a requirement, providing information in this manner will assist the Government in understanding what is being proposed both technically and in terms of cost realism.

Section III. Other Cost Information

Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates.

The cost proposal should include identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (i.e., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.).

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.

Cost proposals submitted by FFRDC’s (prime or subcontractor) will be forwarded, if selected for negotiation, to their sponsoring organization contracting officer for review to confirm that all required forward pricing rates and factors have been used.

2. Proprietary Information

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. Submissions containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such information clearly marked with a label such as “Proprietary” or “Company Proprietary.” Note, “Confidential” is a classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary business information.

3. Security Information

a. Unclassified Submissions

DARPA anticipates that submissions received under this BAA will be unclassified. However, should a proposer wish to submit classified information, an unclassified email must be sent to the BAA mailbox notifying the Technical Office PSO of the submission and the below guidance must be followed.

Security classification guidance and direction via a Security Classification Guide (SCG) and/or DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” will not be provided at this time. 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.

b. Classified Submissions

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

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

http://www.dss.mil/

If a submission contains Classified National Security Information as defined by Executive Order 13526, the information must be appropriately and conspicuously marked with the proposed classification level and declassification date.