HR001117S0025-Amendment-01.pdf

HR001117S0025

Microsystems Technology Office Broad Agency Announcement

Atomic Magnetometer for Biological Imaging In Earth’s Native Terrain (AMBIIENT)

HR001117S0025

March 29, 2017

(Amendment No. 01: As amended through April 13, 2017)

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. Program Schedule E. Program Metrics and Milestones F. Deliverables G. 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

4. Human Research Subjects/Animal Use

5. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information Controls

6. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

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

8. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

9. Intellectual Property

a. For Procurement Contracts

b. For All Non-Procurement Contracts

10. Patents

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

12. Funding Restrictions

C. Submission Information

1. Submission Dates and Times

a. Full Proposal Date

2. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

3. Proposal Submission Information

a. Classified Submission Information

4. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

3. Cost Realism

4. Realism of Proposed Schedule

5. Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience

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

1. Proposals 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

A. Proposers Day B. Protesting

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: Atomic Magnetometer for Biological Imaging In Earth’s

Native Terrain (AMBIIENT) Announcement Type: Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number: HR001117S0025 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA): 12.910 Research and

Technology Development Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time):

o Posting Date: March 29, 2017 o Proposers Day: April 3, 2017 o FAQ Submission Deadline: May 18, 2017 at 5:00 PM o Proposal Due Date: June 1, 2017 at 5:00 PM o Estimated period of performance start: October 2017

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The DARPA Microsystems Technology Office is soliciting research proposals for the development of magnetic gradiometers with sufficient resolution to enable imaging of biological activity in unshielded environments.

Anticipated Funding Available for Award: $30M Anticipated individual awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

Anticipated funding type: 6.2 Types of instruments that may be awarded: Procurement contract or other transaction Agency contact

Dr. Robert Lutwak, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: HR001117S0025@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: HR001117S0025

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

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.

mailto:name@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 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 and 2 C.F.R. § 200.203. 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 for the development of magnetic gradiometers with sensitivity exceeding 1 femtoTesla/cm/Hz for application to biological imaging outside of shielded environments. Proposed research should investigate novel physical mechanisms or architectures that directly measure field gradient.

Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice, particularly the development of individual high-performance scalar sensors arranged in a gradiometric configuration.

A. Background

Magnetic sensing of sub-surface electrical currents offers a unique capability for dynamic imaging of biological processes with extensive applications in both biomedical research and clinical diagnosis, including magnetoencephalography (MEG)1, magnetocardiography (MCG)2, and fetal magnetocardiography (fMCG) 3. Recent studies have demonstrated emerging applications in spinal signal detection4, diagnosis of mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI)5, and in Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMI) 6.

To date, magnetic imaging (MI) research has generally employed cryogenic Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) magnetic sensors, which offer ~ 1 femtoTesla (fT) sensitivity7 but require liquid helium cooling and are therefore expensive to purchase and operate. Recent technology based on Spin-Exchange Relaxation Free (SERF) atomic magnetometry8 has demonstrated potential for increased sensitivity through improved proximity of the sensing element to the patient. SERF’s design simplicity and lack of cryogenic cooling

1 See, for example, Nevalainen, et. al., Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014; 8: 158 2 See, for example, Stroink, in Frontiers in Neuroscience 4:1-8 3 Wyllie et. al., Optics letters 37, 2247-2249 (2012).

4 Fujii et. l., Front. Neurosci. Conference Abstract: Biomag 2010 - 17th International Conference on Biomagnetism 5 Huang et. al., NeuroImage, 61, 1067-1082.

6 Hochberg et. al., Nature, 485, 372 (2012); Shih et. Al, Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Mar; 87(3): 268–279 7 Review of Scientific Instruments 77, 101101 (2006) 8 Alfred, et. Al., Physical Review Letters, 89, 130801.

http://www.fbo.gov/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497935/ requirements also enable a lower cost of ownership. A large body of academic research employing both SQUID and SERF-atomic magnetometry has been published in recent years.

However, as discussed below, widespread application of magnetic sensing to clinical or field diagnosis has heretofore been limited by high instrumentation costs and highly shielded facilities that are required to sense very small biological signals, typically ranging from 10 fT to 10 picoTesla (pT) at the measurement location for MEG and MCG, respectively.

Both SQUID and SERF-atomic sensors provide sensitivity approaching 1 fT/Hz, which is sufficient to address a wide range of biological applications. However, both technologies suffer from limited dynamic range and each, for differing reasons, is essentially non-functional in ambient fields exceeding 100 nT. Because Earth’s ambient field has a mean value of approximately 50 T, it is therefore necessary to perform these experiments in a specialized facility, typically a room constructed of multi-layer high-permeability “mu-metal.” The additional cost of building and maintaining such a facility is a further barrier to widespread deployment of MI technology.

Outside of shielded facilities, a wide range of magnetic sensing technologies are available, ranging from low-cost Hall probes to high-performance atomic sensors, which address a wide range of applications from mechanical proximity sensing, to magnetic north-finding, to geophysical research and exploration. Such ambient sensors can be customized for optimum sensing of particular phenomena but all have a fixed dynamic range of approximately 1 ppm that is limited by practical considerations of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal recovery electronics. As such, state-of-the-art magnetic sensing in Earth’s ambient field is limited to about 10 pT/Hz, an impressive dynamic range (DR) of 0.01 ppm (160 dB), yet still insufficient for biological MI.

The time and spatial variation of Earth’s ambient field poses a significant challenge to deployment of high-sensitivity magnetometry outside of shielded facilities. In the relevant bandwidths for biological MI, 1-100 Hz, background noise on Earth’s ambient field ranges from 1-100 pT, up to 80 dB higher than the signals of interest. To overcome this limitation, applications such as geophysical exploration and unexploded ordnance detection typically assemble two magnetometers in a so-called “gradient” configuration where one sensor is held close to the test area and the second, some baseline distance away, is employed to measure the background fluctuations. In this differential configuration, a high degree of common-mode rejection (CMR) may be achieved, with achievable sensitivity, in (pT/cm)/Hz, limited by the performance of the sensors (in pT/Hz) and by the baseline separation between them (in cm).

For a particular sensor, gradient sensitivity may be arbitrarily improved by increasing the baseline. However, CMR is correspondingly degraded due to spatial variation of the ambient background, typically on the order of 1 pT/m, as well as variation of the background noise. For this reason, recent development of high-performance atomic magnetometers has focused on improving dynamic range and noise floor, in order to perform gradiometry over shorter baselines. Nonetheless, the dynamic range necessary for biological sensing (100 T/1 fT = 220 dB) remains far beyond what is technically feasible.

B. Program Description

The Atomic Magnetometer for Biological Imaging In Earth’s Native Terrain (AMBIIENT) program seeks to develop next-generation sensors that directly measure magnetic field gradient over short distances rather than subtracting the signals from two separate total field magnetometers. AMBIIENT sensors will produce a signal that is directly proportional to the magnetic field gradient, thereby providing high CMR without requiring extraordinarily high DR in each sensor. The success of AMBIIENT requires invention and development of novel physics techniques and sensor architectures that directly measure magnetic field gradient rather than total field. While the AMBIIENT program objectives and metrics are derived from the application to biological imaging, it is expected that successful proposals will develop a standalone gradiometric magnetometer with applicability to a wide variety of magnetic sensing applications.

A number of candidate technologies and architectures have been proposed for magnetic gradiometry, though DARPA is unaware of any published demonstrations of suitable performance for biological imaging in unshielded environments. Conventional approaches, such as those based on improving the performance of separated scalar sensors, will be considered non-responsive to this BAA.

Because two- or three-dimensional imaging requires sensor arrays, ranging from a minimum of 3x3=9 for simple MCG to 16x16=256 for high-end MEG, each individual sensor must be of relatively small size, weight, and power (SWaP), as indicated in the program goals in Table 1.

While widespread deployment for diagnostic applications will eventually require low-cost sensors, cost considerations are premature at this early stage of research and development and is therefore not included in the program metrics. Note that while AMBIIENT program goals are derived from the MCG and MEG application requirements, the development and testing of MCG or MEG imaging systems and software is outside of the scope of AMBIIENT.

C. Program Structure

The AMBIIENT program consists of a single technical area with the objective of developing a magnetic gradiometer demonstrating the performance, SWaP, and environmental requirements of Table 1. All successful proposals will provide measureable, quantitative milestones at the conclusion of each phase. Proposals should provide technical rationale for meeting or exceeding each milestone and a clear trajectory to achieving the program metrics in each phase. Proposals must address all phases.

DARPA expects to fund investigation of a variety of architectures in Phase 1 and continue funding the most promising candidate technologies for further development in subsequent phases. While this BAA specifically calls out “atomic” magnetometry, alternative sensing technologies will be considered, insofar as the proposal substantiates their capability to meet all of the program objectives.

D. Program Schedule

The program consists of three phases including proof of concept, physics integration, and complete device integration. Phases 1 and 2 will focus on sensor development, with resources expended on electronics only insofar as necessary to support test and verification of sensor performance. In Phase 3, performers will develop a complete sensor system, including compact low-power control electronics. Where necessary for risk reduction, and if technically substantiated, advance development of specific electronic components may be considered prior to Phase 3.

Phase 1: Base Period (18 months)

AMBIIENT Phase 1 will demonstrate sensor functionality and performance in a laboratory setting meeting the performance metrics as indicated in Table 1. The sensor volume requirements are relaxed in Phase 1 to allow independent development of components and/or use of COTS components for initial proof of concept. The power metric reflects the total consumption of all sensor components (P=ΣVi*Ii), including all vacuum and photonic components, as well as any necessary thermal control. Power conditioning and controlling electronics are not included in the power consumption metric of this phase.

Phase 2: Option 1 (12 months)

AMBIIENT Phase 2 will develop and demonstrate an integrated sensor head meeting the performance and SWaP metrics of Table 1, and including all vacuum, photonic, and thermal control components. The sensor volume assumes a rectangular parallelepiped or cylindrical geometry. The sensor will be sufficiently rugged and compact to allow for temperature testing as indicated in Table 1. The performer will support transportation to and test of one sensor, along with suitably portable control electronics, at a government testing facility as directed by DARPA, two months prior to the conclusion of Phase 2.

Phase 3: Option 2 (12 months)

AMBIIENT Phase 3 will demonstrate a fully integrated gradiometer comprising all control electronics, power conditioning, and packaging, meeting all performance metrics of Table 1.

Phase 3 prototype gradiometers should require only a single external power source and will provide digital output of total field and gradient at data rates as indicated in Table 1. Power consumption will be determined by P = V * I of the power input and volume will be separately computed for the sensor and control modules. Five complete prototype gradiometers will be delivered to a government testing facility, as directed by DARPA, at the conclusion of Phase 3.

E. Program Metrics and Milestones

AMBIIENT program metrics are presented in Table 1. Additional notes below the table provide detail describing the metrics. All proposals should provide compelling justification for their ability to meet each metric in each phase of the proposed programs. While specialized test environments may be necessary for development and validation of AMBIIENT sensor performance, it is expected that AMBIIENT sensors will meet all performance metrics in an unshielded, uncompensated laboratory environment.

Phase 1 Proof-of-concept

(1)

Phase 2 Integrated Sensor

(2)

Phase 3 Complete Gradiometer

(3) Note

Power Consumption 150 mW 50 mW 100 mW (4)

Sensor Volume 3 x 3 x 10 cm 1 x 1 x 7 cm 1 x 1 x 7 cm (5)

Control Electronics Volume N/A N/A < 20 cm3 (5)

Ambient Magnetic Field 100 T 100 T 100 T (6)

Ambient Operating Temperature N/A 0C to +50C 0C to +50C (7)

Gradient Full-scale Range 1 nT/cm 1 nT/cm 1 nT/cm (8)

Gradient Sensitivity 10 fT/cm/Hz 3 fT/cm/Hz 1 fT/cm/Hz

Gradient Accuracy 100 fT/cm 30 fT/cm 10 fT/cm (9)

Total Field Range 100 T 100 T 100 T

Total Field Sensitivity 100 pT/Hz 50 pT/Hz 10 pT/Hz

Total Field Accuracy 1 nT 500 pT 100 pT (10)

Data Rate 100 /s 200 /s 500 /s (11)

3-dB Bandwidth 200 Hz 400 Hz 1000 Hz (12) Table 1: AMBIIENT Program Metrics

Notes:

1) In Phase 1, detailed analysis and modeling of the proposed AMBIIENT sensor will be performed. A prototype sensor will be fabricated and tested in a laboratory environment for compliance with Phase 1 metrics. At the conclusion of Phase 1, the contractor will present a detailed analysis, based on simulation and modeling as well as Phase 1 test data, demonstrating that the technology is capable of achieving the Phase 3 program objectives.

2) In Phase 2, an integrated sensor head will be developed and tested for compliance with Phase 2 metrics. A combination of laboratory and brassboard electronics may be used for operation and evaluation of the sensor head, though it is expected that the sensor itself will be in near-final configuration. It is expected that the contractor will provide one prototype sensor head, along with any necessary control electronics, to the government for evaluation no later than two months prior to the conclusion of Phase 2.

3) In Phase 3, the contractor will continue to iterate and refine performance of the sensor head and develop compact low-power control electronics, operating from a single DC power supply and providing digital data output. The complete gradiometer, including both the sensor and control electronics, will be evaluated for compliance with Phase 3 program metrics. It is expected that the contractor will deliver five (5) complete gradiometer systems at the conclusion of Phase 3 for government evaluation.

4) Power consumption is determined as the sum of the current and voltage requirements of all components, i.e. Vi*Ii, including any active photonic components, e.g. lasers, attenuators, or modulators, as well as any necessary temperature stabilization, bias fields, etc. In Phase 1 and 2, this applies to all components of the sensor. In Phase 3, power is measured at the DC input to the gradiometer system.

5) It is assumed that the final gradiometer comprises a sensor head, connected via umbilical to a control electronics package. The sensor volume requirements refer to the sensor head only. The control volume requirements refer to the outer parallelepiped dimensions of the fully packaged control module. In the case where physical sensor components, such as lasers or detectors, are remotely located in the control module, rather than the sensor head, metric volume may be proportionately moved between the two subassemblies.

6) The gradiometer is expected to meet all sensitivity and accuracy requirements, regardless of orientation, in a 100 T uniform ambient field.

7) In Phase 2, the sensor head shall meet all requirements, including operating power, sensitivity, and accuracy over the operating temperature range. In Phase 3, the performance requirements apply to the complete gradiometer, including control electronics.

8) Gradient of the magnitude of the total magnetic field along a defined axis: (|B1|-|B2|)/d, where |B1| and |B2| are the scalar magnitudes of the magnetic field at two locations separated by distance d.

9) Calibrated accuracy of the gradiometer, including turn-on to turn-on repeatability, aging over time, over the full range of ambient temperature and magnetic field, and in immediate proximity to additional AMBIIENT sensors spaced as closely as packaging allows.

10) The sensor shall provide an output of the total scalar field (non-gradiometric) at a specified location in the sensor head. Accuracy of the total field output includes turn-on to turn-on repeatability, aging over time, and over the full range of ambient temperature and magnetic field and field gradient, and in immediate proximity to additional AMBIIENT sensors spaced as closely as packaging allows.

11) The gradiometer shall provide digital output of the field gradient and total field at the specified data rate.

12) The amplitude of the gradient and total field signal detected shall not decrease to below 71% of its DC value at the frequency indicated.

F. Deliverables

At the conclusion of Phase 2, the performer will be responsible for delivering the prototype, along with any necessary control electronics to a test facility as determined by DARPA.

Following the evaluation, the prototype and electronics will be returned to performers to support Phase 3 development. At the conclusion of Phase 3, all performers will deliver five (5) complete gradiometer assemblies, including control electronics, to locations as determined by DARPA.

Phase 3 deliverables will become government property upon delivery.

In addition to the hardware deliverables described above, all performers shall deliver monthly financial and quarterly technical reports. All performers shall prepare and submit briefing materials and participate in quarterly technical reviews, either via telecon or at the contractor’s site at the discretion of DARPA. All performers shall travel to and support semi-annual program-wide reviews at locations TBD in the CONUS.

G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information

No GFE is explicitly offered as part of the BAA. If GFE is requested, it should be identified in the proposal, along with source description and need-by date.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

Multiple 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.4., “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 may result in a procurement contract or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. Appropriate clauses will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This clause can be found at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

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

III. Eligibility Information

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

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

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

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.

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 (4 sections). The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. 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 20 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 editable 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/

a. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

1) BAA number (HR001117S0025);

2) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

3) Type of organization, selected from the following categories:

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

4) Proposer’s internal reference number (if any);

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

6) Proposal title;

7) Technical point of contact to include:

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

8) Administrative point of contact to include:

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

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

10) Date proposal was submitted.

B. Official transmittal letter.

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

Section II. Detailed Proposal Information

A. Statement of Work (SOW)

In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The SOW page length will depend on the amount of effort.

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; See Section I.F.

6. Identify whether government-furnished equipment is requested (see I.G) and, if so, the required quantity and delivery schedule;

7. Clearly identify any Risk Reduction tasks (see II.D, below); AND

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

Note: Each program phase must be separately defined in the SOW. Include a SOW for each subcontractor and/or consultant in the Cost Proposal Volume. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW(s).

B. Innovative Claims

Succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to current state-of-art alternate approaches.

C. Detailed Technical Approach

This is the centerpiece of the proposal and should provide a detailed description of the proposed technology, including analysis and modeling where available, to substantiate the innovative claims of Section II.B. This section must include a proposed milestone table and performance objectives, by phase, similar to Table 1 of this BAA. Proposals should clearly explain the technical approach that will be employed to meet or exceed each program metric and provide ample justification as to why the approach is feasible. Where applicable, analysis should include concise performance budget tables, e.g. for contributory error or power budget elements.

D. Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan

Identify the major technical and programmatic risks in the program. Include a risk matrix.

For each risk, assign a probability of occurrence on a scale of 1-10, where 10 indicates a high likelihood that the risk will impact program success, as well as an assessment of impact, also on a scale of 1-10, where 10 indicates that this risk would maximally limit the program from delivering prototypes on schedule or meeting performance objectives. For each item with total risk (likelihood × impact) exceeding 40, include a plan for mitigating the risk and assessing risk reduction.

Where necessary, parallel risk reduction tasks may be proposed, e.g. concurrent development of redundant techniques or components. The proposal must differentiate the primary technical path from risk reduction tasks, which should be uniquely identified in the SOW and separately costed as optional tasks in Volume II.

E. Schedule and Milestones

Include a high-level Gantt chart outlining major technical tasks and measureable milestones by phase. At a minimum, the schedule should include each SOW task of Volume 1, Section

II.A. Where risk reduction tasks are proposed, the schedule should include a milestone for assessment and removal of redundant tasks.

F. Test Plan

Describe how compliance with the proposed metrics and milestones will be demonstrated in each phase of the program. The test plan should be structured so that compliant performance can be verified prior to delivery of hardware for government test and evaluation.

G. 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.”

H. Ongoing Research

Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

I. Proposer Accomplishments

Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas. In this section, also include any ongoing research projects or pending proposal activity that technically overlaps with the proposed effort, including funding source, administrative point of contact, and the program management plan for combining and de-conflicting the efforts.

J. Facilities

Description of the facilities that will be used for the proposed effort.

K. Teaming

Description of the formal teaming agreements that are required to execute this program.

Describe the programmatic relationship between investigators and the rationale for choosing this teaming strategy. Present a coherent organization chart and integrated management strategy for the program team. For each person, indicate: (1) name, (2) affiliation, (3) abbreviated listing of all technical area tasks they will work on with roles, responsibilities, and percent time indicated, (4) discussion of the proposers’ previous accomplishments, relevant expertise and/or unique capabilities.

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 and Government Labs, must submit the following:

Section I. Administrative

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001117S0025);

(2) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

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

(4) Proposer’s internal reference number (if any);

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

(6) Proposal title;

(7) 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);

(8) 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);

(9) Award instrument requested:

Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost-contract—no fee, cost sharing contract—no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify) or Other Transaction;

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

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

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

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

(14) Date proposal was prepared;

(15) DUNS number;

(16) TIN number;

(17) CAGE Code;

(18) Subcontractor Information;

(19) Proposal validity period (120 days is recommended); AND

(20) 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 proposer’s (to include FFRDCs and Government Labs) cost volume shall provide cost and pricing information, or other than cost or pricing information if the total price is under the referenced threshold (See Note 1), 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” by phase and performer fiscal year, and a “Detailed Cost Breakdown” by phase, technical task/sub-task, and month. 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. See Section IV.B.13 for travel funding restrictions;

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 with a unit price 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 detailed 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 (fully disclosed subcontract proposal), 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, may result in the full proposal being deemed non-compliant or evaluation ratings may be lowered;

H. Cost-Sharing

The amount of any industry cost-sharing (the source and…