HR001117S0021.pdf

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 1

Broad Agency Announcement RadioBio

Defense Sciences Office

HR001117S0021

February 15, 2017

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 2

Table of Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Introduction and Background B. Program Description/Scope C. Program Structure D. Other Program Objectives and Considerations

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

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review and Selection Process C. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) B. Collaborative Efforts/Teaming C. Proposers Day

ATTACHMENT 1: ABSTRACT TEMPLATE

ATTACHMENT 2: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE – TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT VOLUME

ATTACHMENT 3: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE – COST VOLUME

ATTACHMENT 4: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE – ADMINISTRATIVE & NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT 5: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE SLIDES

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 3

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office (DSO)

Funding Opportunity Title: RadioBio

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: HR001117S0021

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): 12.910 Research and Technology Development

Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time.)

o Posting Date: February 15, 2017 o Proposers Day: February 21, 2017. See Section VIII.C.

o Abstract Due Date: March 7, 2017, 4:00 p.m.

o FAQ Submission Deadline: April 5, 2017, 4:00 p.m. See Section VIII.A.

o Full Proposal Due Date: April 12, 2017, 4:00 p.m.

Anticipated Individual Awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of Instruments that May be Awarded: Procurement contracts, cooperative agreements or other transactions.

Agency contacts o Technical POC: Michael Fiddy, Program Manager, DARPA/DSO o BAA Email Address: RadioBioBAA@darpa.mil o BAA Mailing Address: DARPA/DSO, ATTN: HR001117S0021, 675 North

Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203-2114

DARPA/DSO Opportunities Website: http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities

Teaming Information: See Section VIII.B for information on teaming opportunities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): FAQs for this solicitation may be viewed on the DSO Opportunities Website. See Section VIII.A for further information.

mailto:RadioBioBAA@darpa.mil http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?tFilter=&oFilter=2&sort=name

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 4

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) constitutes a public notice of a competitive funding opportunity as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 as well as 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant negotiations and/or awards will follow all laws and regulations applicable to the specific award instrument(s) available under this BAA, e.g., FAR

15.4 for procurement contracts.

A. Introduction and Background The Defense Sciences Office (DSO) at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative research proposals that investigate electromagnetic signaling in biosystems. The RadioBio program aims to definitively establish whether purposeful signaling via electromagnetic waves between biological systems exists and, if it does, determine the mechanisms involved and the information being transferred. If electromagnetic communications between biosystems exist, then systematic study of the phenomenon may reveal new knowledge.

New applications and capabilities in biology may result from this program, in addition to potential new strategies for dealing with communications in a cluttered electromagnetic environment. The RadioBio program will determine the validity of electromagnetic biosignaling claims and, where evidence exists, learn how the structure and function of these natural “antennas” are capable of generating and receiving information in a noisy, cluttered electromagnetic environment.

Over the last 100 years, biologists have studied communication between cells and a wide variety of biosystems. Chemical signaling between cells has been well studied and is accepted as an essential component of many biological processes. Nevertheless, biosystems are composed of physical entities, many of which are charged and in motion, and therefore generating electromagnetic waves. Within a single cell, distinct biological structures exist over a huge range of spatial dimensions (nanometers to meters) and a similarly large range of phenomenological time scales (picoseconds to minutes). These spatial and temporal scales, combined with the physical diversity of individual biological structures, make it inevitable that a broad spectrum of electromagnetic waves must interact with biosystems. In addition, numerous biological structures are structurally similar to artificial resonant structures and antennas and may respond similarly to electromagnetic radiation.

Some of the consequences of these interactions are well known, including vision, photosynthesis, bioluminescence, neural networks, and magnetic navigation. Very limited information exists regarding kHz–THz electromagnetic interactions between biosystems. Several theoretical papers, some from the past 10 years, argue that a wide variety of electromagnetic interactions are feasible, including THz interactions with DNA, THz emissions from cell membranes, kHz emissions from cells. At the same time, numerous experiments have shown preliminary evidence for the influence of electromagnetic fields on cells and tissues from Hz to PHz.

Furthermore, specific biostructures have been hypothesized to act as switches, diodes, transformers, and amplifiers. However, previously published results have not definitely determined if electromagnetic signaling between biosystems exists. In addition, many

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 5

experiments have failed to study effects in a parametric and quantitative way, experimentally test quantitative theoretical predictions, or provide adequate controls for systematic errors.

For the purposes of the RadioBio program, any experiment that definitively determines if electromagnetic wave signaling exists must be predictive, quantitative, parametric, and controlled:

Predictive: Specific quantitative theoretical predictions must be made and then tested (which will require modeling/simulating biosystems as transmit/receive antennas, modeling/simulating the surrounding EM environment, etc.). This is in contrast to observational research, in which X effect is observed to occur after probing with Y electromagnetic fields – this type of research is not appropriate for the RadioBio program.

Quantitative: Models must predict absolute, numeric measures of field strengths, ranges, bandwidths, channel capacities, etc.

Parametric: Models must predict and experiments must test a continuum of responses as key parameters are varied, in order to reveal and understand underlying mechanisms.

Controlled: Experiments must carefully control for a wide range of systematic effects related to both biological sample preparation and antenna measurements. In addition, adequate verification of results requires a particular model of electromagnetic communication to be tested in different environments, with different biological systems, and at different length and time scales.

B. Program Description/Scope

All RadioBio teams must propose specific electromagnetic signaling mechanisms. Through modeling and simulation, teams must quantify these hypotheses by clearly defining the biosystems and biosystem components that affect the communications channel, the electromagnetic spatial/spectral/temporal/frequency modes that mediate the communication, and the likely sources of background/clutter/noise that degrade the communication. These models must then be used to make quantitative, parametric predictions in multiple biosystems and multiple environments, which, if experimentally verified, would definitively prove the existence of the electromagnetic signaling channel.

DARPA anticipates that cross-disciplinary teams will be necessary to accomplish these goals.

More specifically, it is expected that successful teams will include demonstrated and dedicated technical expertise in the following core areas:

Theory – Bio-electromagnetics: In order to define and refine core hypotheses, a team must include experts who understand the complex interactions between the biosystems being studied, as well as effects from the biosystems environment that are not directly involved. Team members must understand the biological ramifications of the proposed communications channels as well as alternate (e.g., chemical) communications channels that could provide an alternate explanation for observed effects. Finally, teams must be able to produce complex models and simulations of these systems, either classical or quantum mechanical, as appropriate.

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 6

Theory – Antenna Design: Teams must have the ability to model complex antenna systems, using either classical or quantum tools as needed, but without using many of the assumptions common to antenna design. Biosystem antennas will likely span the near and far field, be smaller than a single wavelength, be contained in non-uniform arrays, be contained in complex aqueous and charged environments, and have structures that are moving and changing on the same timescales relevant for electromagnetic emission and detection.

Experiment – Biosystem Preparation: Teams must demonstrate the ability to prepare all required biosystems on multiple scales and environments. Teams must demonstrate a deep understanding of the potential systematic errors and potential variations between different biosystem preparations as well as a quantitative understanding of the systematic errors such preparations will introduce into measurements.

Experiment – Electromagnetic Measurements: Teams must demonstrate the ability to produce sources and detectors with sufficient bandwidth, stability, efficiency, noise, and wavelengths to test proposed hypotheses. In particular, it is essential that team members understand both the effects of electromagnetic background/clutter and their effect on experimental precision and repeatability.

While the scope of the program includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from low frequency electromagnetic waves through to PHz, DARPA’s interest in new research means that preference may be given to proposals focusing on the kHz to THz range where less is known. A specific requirement for proposals is that an electromagnetic wave information channel is unambiguously identified in a biosystem, in the sense that a transmitted signal results in a specific biological consequence and that this behavior is reproducible with respect to event and frequency used. Similarly, a predictive model for the transmit/receive antenna or biological “circuitry” is required, as is quantitative experimental verification of the model. Experiments must be clearly described, with particular attention paid to controls and systematic effects. In order to show reproducibility and repeatability, a model’s predictions must be verified in multiple systems and multiple environments. Proposed research may investigate electromagnetic exchanges between similar or dissimilar biosystems.

In order to be eligible for funding, proposals must include:

A clear description of the classes of hypotheses to be studied, including the hypothesized purpose of the communication channel and the biological consequence of a received electromagnetic signal

A list of biosystems to be studied, with justification that these biosystems will be sufficient to test the proposed hypotheses

The anticipated electromagnetic frequency range to be studied The hypothesized mode structure of the electromagnetic fields involved, including spatial/spectral/temporal/frequency components A clear description of the modeling strategy for the biological environments and their interaction with electromagnetic waves, including hypothesized mechanisms for emission, modulation, and detection (may be described by classical antenna theories or quantum processes)

A clear description of the antenna modeling strategy, including how the proposers will address the near/far field, time-varying antennas, non-uniform arrays of biological

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 7

sources and detectors, source and detector size as they relate to the wavelength of the electromagnetic fields, and the aqueous charged environment of, for example, a single cell

A clear argument that the proposed electromagnetic sources and detectors have sufficient bandwidth, stability, tenability, and spectral/temporal/spatial mode structure sufficient to test the proposed hypotheses

A clear argument that the theoretical and experimental plan presented will allow the unambiguous testing of the proposed hypotheses

A clear argument that the experimental plan will be predictive, parametric, quantitative, and controlled

A description of anticipated systematic sources of noise, clutter, and background (both biological and electromagnetic), and anticipated mitigation strategies

The following are not appropriate for submission to the RadioBio BAA and will render a proposal non-selectable:1

Observational studies, which propose to collect evidence that electromagnetic waves create biological changes, but which do not include a predictive, quantitative, parametric theoretical model

Studies which do not clearly describe controls for systematic errors and effects Hypotheses that cannot be tested in multiple systems and environments Poor experimental controls or lack of quantitative metrics.

C. Program Structure The program will be structured in two 24-month phases with teams performing in two Technical Areas (TAs): TA1-Hypothesis Testing, and TA2-Theory Support. Descriptions of the phases and technical areas are provided in the following sections. Also, see Section C.3 for a graphic depicting the notional program schedule.

1. Phase Descriptions

Phase 1 (24 Months): Discover Bio-EM Communications

The goal of Phase 1 will be to definitively determine if purposeful electromagnetic signaling exists in biological systems. Phase 1 will be divided into two sub-phases, 1A and 1B, each 12 months in duration.

Phase 1A (12 months): During the first 12 months of the program, teams will clearly describe their hypothesized bio-electromagnetic communications channels and demonstrate the theoretical and experimental capabilities needed to unambiguously test their hypotheses in predictive, quantitative, parametric, and controlled experiments.

1 See Section V.B for information on the proposal selection process.

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 8

Phase 1B (12 months): During the last 12 months of Phase 1, teams will test their hypotheses, definitively determining if purposeful electromagnetic communication between biosystems occurs. If it does, teams will determine what information is being transmitted and how it is being encoded.

Required Metrics: All teams must propose a list of metrics appropriate to their effort. All metrics must be described in terms of: (1) the precision with which the metric can be theoretically predicted; (2) the precision with which the metric can be experimentally measured;

and (3) the accuracy with which the theoretical prediction will match the experimental prediction. All proposed metrics must be predictive, quantitative, parametric, and controlled.

Proposals should give specific metrics and associated precision/accuracy targets for 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months into the program. Proposals should specify all metrics necessary to show that their proposed class of hypotheses can be definitively tested.

Phase 2 (24 Months): Exploit Communications Channel

The goal of Phase 2 is to apply the knowledge gained from Phase 1 by designing and implementing engineered communication systems in model systems. The potential test beds to demonstrate the learned design principles include but are not limited to sensing or regulation of biological functions. Proposals must identify specific potential applications for their hypothesized communications channels and detail how their activities in Phase 2 – if successful

– will lead to potential real-world applications. Successful proposals will define how communications will be implemented and how variables will be controlled. Because the design principles will not be known until the conclusion of Phase 2, proposers should discuss prior efforts or team member capabilities that will enable rapid implementation of the lessons learned in Phase 1. Intimate knowledge of a model system will be a key consideration.

Required Metrics: In addition to the precision/accuracy metrics described above, proposers should provide specific, quantitative metrics for their proposed Phase 2 efforts. These metrics should be sufficiently stringent that if reached, the proposed new application based on a biological electromagnetic communications channel would be immediately realizable and broadly implementable.

2. Technical Area Descriptions and Milestones As mentioned above, all submissions will fall into one of two Technical Areas, Hypothesis Testing or Theory Support. Proposers may submit to both TAs; however, each TA must be addressed in a separate submission.

TA1: Hypothesis Testing This is the primary focus of the RadioBio program. Teams responding to this TA must propose, model, and experimentally test specific hypothesized channels for electromagnetic communication in biological systems. All teams proposing to TA1 must demonstrate expertise in the following four core areas of expertise (see C. Program Description / Scope for a detailed description of these four elements):

Theory – Bio-electromagnetics

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 9

Theory – Antennas Experiment – Biological System Preparation Experiment – Electromagnetic Measurements

All teams proposing to TA1 must show they are capable of addressing all program milestones and program goals without any additional support. However, they must also demonstrate that their team structure is capable of accommodating additional theoretical support if provided (see

TA2).

Required Milestones: All proposals to TA1 must address the following required milestones in the statement of work and schedule.

Phase Month Milestone Description

6 Define Hypotheses

All teams must clearly identify their hypothesized communications channels as well as what specific predictions and experimental tests must be undertaken to definitively demonstrate that these communications channels exist. Each hypothesis must include the specific quantitative, parametric predictions that will be experimentally tested, as well as the specific systematic effects that will be controlled for.Ph as e

1A

Demonstrate All Tools

Needed to Test Hypotheses

Teams must demonstrate all theoretical and experimental tools necessary to definitively test their hypotheses. At this point, these tools do not need to be combined into a cohesive experiment, but all crucial elements must be present and tested.

Complete First

Experimental Tests of Hypotheses

All teams should have combined all key elements and made the first complete tests of theoretical predictions.

Ph as e 1B

Complete Verification and Validation of Experimental Results

In order to definitively demonstrate that a communications channel exists, the effect will need to be verified using several different biological systems, at several different scales, in several different environments. By the end of Phase 1, all required verification and validation experiments must be completed

30 Identify All Necessary Tools

Teams must identify all theoretical and experimental tools necessary to exploit an electromagnetic communications channel for either biological sensing or regulation of a biological process.

Ph as e

36 Demonstrate All Necessary Tools

Teams must demonstrate all basic technical capabilities, both theoretical and experimental, needed to exploit their effect of choice.

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 10

Successfully Exploit an Electromagnetic Communications

Channel

All teams must successfully demonstrate biological sensing or regulation as a result of a biological electromagnetic communications channel.

Successfully Demonstrate New

Sensing/Regulation Application

Teams must show that they can, in principle, transfer a robust procedure to others who can replicate new sensing or regulation capabilities.

TA2: Theory Support A team, with a strong track record in, for example, antenna design may alternately propose to provide theoretical support for the program. In this case, a proposing team should demonstrate that they can provide a specific theoretical capability that will be useful to the overall goals of RadioBio. TA2 performers will model how the structure and function of biosystem structures, identified as natural antennas, are capable of generating and receiving information in what is likely to be a noisy spectral environment. Models will provide quantitative and parametric descriptions and predictions. This support may guide experiments towards definitively establishing whether purposeful communication via electromagnetic waves between biological systems and model what mechanisms are involved and what information is being transferred.

Proposals to TA2 must clearly:

Provide precision metrics for systems they plan on modeling / simulating (they are not required to provide experimental precision metrics or accuracy metrics)

Clearly describe what systems and effects they are capable of modeling, including how those results would be quantitative, predictive, and parametric

Clearly describe the systematic effects and cluttered environments for which their modeling / simulations would be relevant

Proposals to TA2 will only be considered eligible for funding if their specific proposed capabilities are seen to support the broader RadioBio portfolio.

3. Schedule Proposers should provide a technical and programmatic strategy that conforms to the entire program schedule and presents an aggressive plan to fully address all program goals, metrics, milestones and deliverables. Proposals should be structured with Phase 1 as a base period and Phase 2 as an option. The task structure must be consistent across the proposed schedule, Statement of Work, and cost volume. All proposals must include metrics appropriate for demonstrating progress over the course of the program. Subject to performance, funds availability, and other program considerations, DARPA anticipates only carrying the most successful performers forward through the entire 48-month program. Performers who have made insufficient progress or whose approaches are unlikely to reach the final program goals will not move forward into the next phase (option period).

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 11

Figure 1-Notional RadioBio Program Schedule

A target start date of September 2017 may be assumed for planning purposes. Schedules will be synchronized across performers, as required, and monitored/revised as necessary throughout the program.

4. Meetings and Travel All proposals must include the following meetings and travel in the proposed schedule and costs:

To foster collaboration between teams, and disseminate program developments, a two-day Principal Investigator (PI) meeting will be held approximately every six months, starting with a kickoff meeting in September 2017, with locations split between the East and West Coasts of the United States (US). For budgeting purposes, plan for eight two-day meetings over the course of 48 months: four meetings in the Washington, D.C. area and four meetings in California.

Regular teleconference meetings will be scheduled with the Government team for progress reporting as well as problems identification and mitigation.

Proposers should also anticipate at least one site visit per phase by the DARPA Program Manager during which they will have the opportunity to demonstrate progress towards agreed-upon milestones.

D. Other Program Objectives and Considerations

1. Collaboration

Throughout the course of the program, it is likely to be necessary for all performers to share relevant information regarding their research and development to support the larger program goals. DARPA expects all program performers to work collaboratively with one another to realize the program objectives outlined herein, so proposers should carefully review the goals for the entire program in order to fully understand the context of each program component and objective, performer category, and milestones within the overall program structure. All

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 12

proposals should describe plans for ensuring transparency of their processes to enable interactions with other program performers.

2. Intellectual Property There is an emphasis on creating and leveraging open source technologies and architectures, since data sharing and collaboration key aspects of this program. Therefore, intellectual property rights asserted by proposers are strongly encouraged to be aligned with open source regimes. See Section VI.B.4 for more information related to intellectual property.

3. Data Management Plan (DMP) This BAA requires a Data Management Plan (DMP) be included as part of the proposal submission. DARPA/DSO’s view of what constitutes the scope of applicable data products to be covered in a DMP is quite broad, potentially encompassing all digital activity related to a project.

DARPA’s approach to an effective and practical DMP is predicated with two goals:

First, data are increasingly the key product of research and engineering endeavors. To ensure the reproducibility of results and the accessibility of program accomplishments to future users, we require proposers document the necessary and sufficient scope of data that may be applicable to these goals. Performers will be expected to document both the proprietary and non-proprietary products of the program (including raw unprocessed data, rarified data sets, test data, experimental designs, software source code and executables, build scripts, process sequence, programmatic communication and other collaboration activities, as well as other data) to ensure the retention and potential reusability of this information.

Second, when possible, DARPA may also share some or all of the program-generated data with the broader research community as open data (with permission to access, reuse, and redistribute under appropriate licensing terms) to the extent permitted by applicable law and regulations (e.g., privacy, security, rights in data, and export control). The complete scope of program-generated data described above may go considerably beyond the scope of data to be made public. Hence, it is expected that as part of a DMP proposers delineate their specific data products that are suitable for public release and how they intend to capture and represent this information. In this way, it is DARPA’s intention to enable reproducibility of results and establish (or contribute to) digital collections that can advance this and other scientific fields. Note that this provision is not meant to require disclosure of otherwise proprietary internal component or process intellectual property, but to ensure all performers can meet the overall program objectives.

A DMP should include enough detail to ensure that the data products delivered to DARPA (or made public) are adequate for use by an independent third party in recreation and verification of the scientific results. For example, proposed DMPs should address the following:

Plans for data capture and sharing, including the extent and specific mechanisms to be used during the period of performance for the program;

Any data management standards and/or community best practices that may apply;

A data inventory, with rough estimates of data kinds and assets; formats; sizes (e.g., KB, MB, GB, TB), etc. Kinds of data might include:

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 13

o Data sets: experimental, test, and measurement data;

o Design of experiments and simulations o Models or simulations (computational or mathematical);

o Recordings of various physical phenomena (including images, videos, sensor data, etc.)

Proposer’s access to (and proposed use of) institutional, organizational, or scientific community repositories and archives.

With this approach to DMPs, performers are only asked to explicitly document program data, how much there will be and how they intend to manage it as they execute the program. As this is effort that is required to execute the program, DARPA does not expect the existence of a DMP to produce additional cost burden on performers for data management requirements during or after the period of performance.

4. Deliverables All performers will be expected to provide, at a minimum, the following deliverables:

Comprehensive quarterly technical reports due within 10 days of the end of the given quarter, describing progress made on the specific milestones as laid out in the SOW.

A phase completion report submitted within 30 days of the end of each phase, summarizing the research done.

Other negotiated deliverables specific to the objectives of the individual efforts. These may include reports, experimental protocols, publications, models, modeling data and results.

Reporting as outlined in Section VI.C.

II. Award Information A. General Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated. The level of funding for individual awards made under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. Awards will be made to proposers2 whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all evaluation factors and the availability of funding considered. See Section V for further information on DARPA's process for evaluating and selecting proposals for award.

The Government reserves the right to:

select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation;

make awards without discussions with proposers;

conduct discussions with proposers if it is later determined to be necessary;

2 As used throughout this BAA, “proposer” refers to the lead organization on a submission to this BAA. The proposer is responsible for ensuring that all information required by a BAA--from all team members--is submitted in accordance with the BAA. “Awardee” refers to anyone who might receive a prime award from the Government, including recipients of procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, or other transactions. “Subawardee” refers to anyone who might receive a subaward from a prime awardee (e.g., subawardee, consultant, etc.).

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 14

segregate portions of resulting awards into pre-priced options;

accept proposals in their entirety or select only portions of proposals for award;

fund awards in increments;

request additional documentation once the award instrument has been determined (e.g., representations and certifications); and remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms 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, cooperative agreement, or other transaction (OT), depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors.

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with Other Transactions, consult www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

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 does not anticipate applying publication restrictions of any kind to individual awards for fundamental research that may result from this BAA. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, the Government is not prohibited from considering and selecting research proposals that, while perhaps not qualifying as fundamental research under the foregoing definition, still meet the http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 15

BAA criteria for submissions. If proposals are selected for award that offer other than a fundamental research solution, the Government will either work with the proposer to modify the proposed statement of work to bring the research back into line with fundamental research or else the proposer will agree to restrictions in order to receive an award.

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 determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental. 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.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is restricted research, their subawardee’s effort may be 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 for DARPA’s consideration.

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. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

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

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 16

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. Foreign Participation 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. For classified submissions, this includes mitigating any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues prior to transmitting the submission to DARPA. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil/isp/foci/foci_faqs.html.

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 http://www.dss.mil/isp/foci/foci_faqs.html

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 17

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 (e.g., OTs under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371).

IV. Application and Submission Information Prior to submitting a full proposal, proposers are strongly encouraged to first submit an abstract as described below. This process allows a proposer to ascertain whether the proposed concept is: (1) applicable to the RadioBio BAA and (2) currently of interest. For the purposes of this BAA, applicability is defined as follows:

The proposed concept is applicable to the technical areas described herein.

The proposed concept investigates an innovative approach that enables revolutionary advances, i.e., will not primarily result in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

The proposed work has not already been completed (i.e., the research element is complete but manufacturing/fabrication funds are required).

The proposer has not already received funding or a positive funding decision for the proposed concept (whether from DARPA or another Government agency).

Abstracts and full proposals that are not found to be applicable to the RadioBio BAA as defined above may be deemed non-conforming3 and removed from consideration. All abstracts and full proposals must provide sufficient information to assess the validity/feasibility of their claims as well as comply with the requirements outlined herein for submission formatting, content and transmission to DARPA. Abstracts and full proposals that fail to do so may be deemed non-

3 “Conforming” is defined as having been submitted in accordance with the requirements outlined herein.

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 18

conforming and removed from consideration. Proposers will be notified of non-conforming determinations via letter.

A. Address to Request Application Package This document contains all information required to submit a response to this solicitation. No additional forms, kits, or other materials are needed except as referenced herein. No request for proposal or additional solicitation regarding this opportunity will be issued, nor is additional information available except as provided at the Federal Business Opportunities website (http://www.fbo.gov), the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov/), or referenced herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission Various templates have been provided as attachments to the BAA posted at http://www.fbo.gov.

Use of these templates is mandatory for all submissions to this BAA. Do not replicate any of these templates using personal or organizational letterhead or formatting (except as directed in the templates) or submit documents as un-editable image files. Document files must be in .pdf, .ppt, .pptx, .odx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats. All submissions must be written in English and all pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with 1-inch margins and font size not smaller than 12-point (8 or 10-point font may be used for figures, tables, and charts).

Complete submission packages are defined as follows:

Abstracts consist of one document file as described in Section IV.B.1 below.

Proposals consist of the following files, described in Section IV.B.2 below:

o Volume 1 - Technical and Management Volume: one document file plus PowerPoint slides for the Executive Summary, and Schedule/Milestones;

o Volume 2 - Cost Volume: one document file, one Cost Summary PowerPoint slide, one Excel spreadsheet and, if applicable, any proprietary subcontractor cost proposals; and o Volume 3 - Administrative and National Policy Requirements: one document file.

1. Abstract Information As stated above, proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out of scope proposal. The abstract provides a synopsis of the proposed project by briefly answering the following questions:

What is the proposed work attempting to accomplish or do?

How is it done today, and what are the limitations?

Who will care and what will the impact be if the work is successful?

How much will it cost, and how long will it take?

DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea. If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.fbo.gov/

HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 19

feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all conforming full proposals using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any comments resulting from the review of an abstract.

Proposers should note that a favorable response to an abstract is not a guarantee that a proposal based on the abstract will ultimately be selected for award negotiation.

While it is DARPA policy to attempt to reply to abstracts within thirty calendar days, proposers to this solicitation may anticipate a response within approximately two weeks. These official notifications will be sent via email to the Technical POC and/or Administrative POC identified on the abstract coversheet.

All abstracts must use the template provided as Attachment 1 to the BAA posted at www.fbo.gov. This template contains content descriptions and format instructions for abstract submissions.

2. Full Proposal Information All complete proposal packages must include the parts listed above in Section IV.B. The following templates, which contain proposal content descriptions and instructions, have been provided as attachments to the BAA posted at www.fbo.gov. Use of these templates is mandatory for all proposal submissions to this BAA.

Attachment 2: Proposal Template – Technical and Management Volume Attachment 3: Proposal Template – Cost Volume Attachment 4: Proposal Template – Administrative and National Policy Requirements Attachment 5: Proposal Template Slides o Slide 1: Executive Summary o Slide 2: Schedule and Milestones o Slide 3: Cost Summary

Proposals not meeting the format prescribed herein may not be reviewed.

3. 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. See Section V.B.1 for additional information.

4. Security Information DARPA anticipates that submissions received under this BAA will be unclassified. However, HR001117S0021 RADIOBIO BAA 20 should a proposer wish to submit classified information, an unclassified email must be sent to the BAA mailbox requesting submission instructions from the DARPA/DSO Program Security Officer (PSO).

Security classification guidance and direction via a SCG and/or DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” will not be provided at this time, since DARPA is soliciting ideas only. 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. Submission Dates and Times Proposers are warned that submission deadlines as outlined herein are in Eastern Time and will be strictly enforced. When planning a response to this solicitation, proposers should take into account that some parts of the submission process may take from one business day to one month to complete (e.g., registering for a DUNS number or TIN).

DARPA will acknowledge receipt of complete submissions via email and assign identifying numbers that should be used in all further correspondence regarding those submissions. If no confirmation is received within two business days, please contact the BAA Administrator at RadioBioBAA@darpa.mil to verify receipt.

1. Abstracts Abstracts must be submitted per the instructions outlined herein and received by DARPA no later than the due date and time listed in Part One: Overview Information. Abstracts received after this time and date may not be reviewed.

2. Full Proposals Full proposal packages--full proposal (Technical and Management Volume, Cost Volume, National and Administrative Requirements) and, as applicable, proprietary subawardee cost proposals, classified appendices to unclassified proposals-- must be submitted per the instructions outlined herein and received by DARPA no later than the due date and time listed in Part One: Overview Information.