HR001117S0037.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Prototype Resilient Operations Testbed for Expeditionary

Urban Scenarios (PROTEUS)

STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001117S0037

June 15, 2017

PROTEUS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

1.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1.2. SCHEDULE/MILESTONES

1.3. PROGRAM METRICS

1.4. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

2. AWARD INFORMATION

2.1. GENERAL AWARD INFORMATION

2.2. FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH

3. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

3.1. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

3.2. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

3.3. COST SHARING/MATCHING

4. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

4.1. ADDRESS TO REQUEST APPLICATION PACKAGE

4.2. CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION

4.3. FORMATTING CHARACTERISTICS

4.4. SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES

4.5. FUNDING RESTRICTIONS

4.6. OTHER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

5.1. EVALUATION CRITERIA

5.2. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS

6. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

6.1. SELECTION NOTICES AND NOTIFICATIONS

6.2. ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS

6.3. REPORTING

6.4. ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

7. AGENCY CONTACTS

8. OTHER INFORMATION

8.1. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

9. APPENDIX 1: ABSTRACT SUMMARY SLIDE

10. APPENDIX 2: ABSTRACT TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND COST

TEMPLATE

11. APPENDIX 3: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY

12. APPENDIX 4: VOLUME 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE

13. APPENDIX 5: VOLUME 2 COVER SHEET, CHECKLIST AND SAMPLE

TEMPLATES

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title – Prototype Resilient Operations Testbed for Expeditionary Urban Scenarios (PROTEUS)

Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number – HR001117S0037

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) - Not applicable

Dates o Posting Date: June 15, 2017 o Proposers Day: June 30, 2017 o Proposal Abstract Due Date: July 12, 2017 o Questions and Answers Due Date: August 1, 2017 o Proposal Due Date: August 22, 2017 o BAA Closing Date: December 11, 2017

Total amount of money to be awarded – Approximately $50M over 3 years

Anticipated individual awards - Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded - Procurement contract or other transaction.

Agency contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort may be reached at:

HR001117S0037@darpa.mil

DARPA/STO

ATTN: HR001117S0037

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001117S0037@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

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

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the areas of development and application of novel integrated decision-making and system assessment platforms for the interactive exploration and testing of expeditionary, urban warfare concepts leveraging nascent capabilities for the dynamic, adaptive composition of human capabilities, systems and plans. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice, such as extensions to existing Live-Virtual-Constructive tools and testbeds currently employed by the Department of Defense.

1.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

A. Background

The goal of the Prototype Resilient Operations Testbed for Expeditionary Urban Operations (PROTEUS) program is to create and demonstrate tools to develop and test agile expeditionary urban operations concepts based on dynamically composable force packages. To achieve this goal, performers will:

Develop software for simultaneous and dynamic real-time task organization, force package (i.e. platforms & weapons) combination and configuration, and tactics planning suitable for implementation in devices (e.g. Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK) phones, tablets with KILSWITCH software, or successors) available to Marines in the 2030-2040 timeframe;

Develop a purpose-built virtual test environment to exercise and demonstrate this capability with an appropriately detailed virtual representation of combined arms operations in a complex urban battlespace; and

Exercise both capabilities in a series of benchmarking tests involving a player cohort for both friendly and opposing forces drawn from active duty Marines. These tests will demonstrate that the ability to dynamically compose small unit organization, capabilities and tactics enable superior performance in the battlespace quantified using metrics such as lethality/(area-cost), resilience, and cost imposition.

If successful, the software tools and concepts developed in the PROTEUS program will enable assessment and exploration of new approaches to combined arms operations involving coordination of effects in multiple domains. These approaches, termed “Agile Precision Warfighting,” could define new doctrine beyond existing notions of enhanced maneuver in a complex battlespace. These concepts could include combinations of unmanned attrition with manned maneuver and novel logistics concepts based on creating and closing windows of sustainment.

i. Context

Expeditionary urban operations are a core responsibility of the Marine Corps, which employs an adaptable and scalable task organization, the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). The MAGTF accomplishes all six warfighting functions – command and control (C2), fires, logistics, maneuver, intelligence and force protection – as a single, integrated unit. The MAGTF has unity of command, simplifying cross- and multi-domain operations, with task organization and force package assets corresponding to pre-defined mission sets (e.g., raid or non-combatant evacuation operation) enabling adaptability to variation in mission types.

Future anti-access and area denial (A2AD) scenarios involving conflicts against peer- and near-peer adversaries in coastal and littoral urban settings severely challenge existing MAGTF task organization and force package concepts. The high dimensionality of urban terrain – time, three-dimensional physical space with complex geometry, including air and subsurface levels, and spectrum – makes maneuver difficult and standoff tactics ineffective, absorbs large numbers of combatants, and particularly in an A2AD setting, negates air superiority advantages traditionally enjoyed by US forces. Urban warfare is fundamentally unchanged since World War II1 in many regards: battle is human-centric, with most casualties resulting from discovering the enemy; a highly distributed defense requires combined arms tactics that incur high logistical and coordination costs; and the presence of a civilian populace means that indiscriminate force is not an option and precision effects are required. Historically, US forces have prevailed in the urban battlespace through the initiative and adaptability of lower echelon (company and below) commanders to overcome adversaries in highly tactical settings.

To succeed in the more complex peer and near-peer battlespace of the 21st century, new task organization and force package concepts are needed to enable Marines to rapidly identify fleeting opportunities in a fluid and ever-changing environment, adapt force packages to exploit them, and achieve disproportionate impact relative to unit size. This enhanced agility may be enabled by dynamically composing individual task-appropriate Marines, assets (platforms and subsystems), and tactics to provide a desired warfighting function (e.g., fires) to achieve tactical goals. “Agile expeditionary urban operations” are Marine operations in urban terrain (cities) that can rapidly adapt to changing circumstances and provide disproportionate effects through precise combined application of warfighting functions.

1 e.g., A. Wahlman, Storming the City: U.S. Military Performance in Urban Warfare from World War II to Vietnam, University of North Texas Press, 2015 (covering Manila and Hue) and B. West, No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah, Bantam Books, 2005, highlight the challenges. The scale and intensity of these three battles is representative of the focus of the program.

A distributed, dynamically composable approach to warfighting couples choices made at higher echelons of command on order of battle, mission objectives and unit placement to tactical outcomes at the small unit level in an especially direct, non-linear, and complex way. The increased agility changes the nature of decision making at all levels of command. A higher echelon commander not only needs to consider if the task organization and force package is suited to the mission, but also must consider adaptability to a range of outcomes and branching mission threads that evolve rapidly. The small-unit leader potentially gains the ability to coordinate and execute combined arms effects with high precision that currently require planning at the battalion level- but only if provisioned with the right tools and people. A persistent and timely common operating picture is unlikely in an austere environment, so new concepts for local command, control and coordination are necessary. New technology such as autonomy further increases the complexity of the problem. The co-evolution of both the Marine and opposing force tactics and capabilities lead to a wide range of possible outcomes even for simple scenarios.

ii. State of the Art Approaches

Systematically exploring the large trade space of task organization, assets, and tactics crossing multiple domains using live testing and exercises is prohibitively expensive and complex.

Assessing the impact of systems comprising multiple technologies in a combined-arms setting is especially hard. Consequently, current approaches to exploring future capabilities are largely limited to wargaming coupled with extensive live testing of the impact of new technologies at the small-unit level.

Wargaming captures the adaptive nature of adversarial human decision-making processes but loses vital tactical detail. Constructive simulation platforms (e.g., One Semi-Automated Forces) accurately capture certain system behaviors but are poorly suited to capturing human-centric Marine adaptation of technology and fail to capture battlespace geometry or tactical behaviors with sufficient detail. First person shooter tactical platforms (e.g., Virtual Battlespace 3) capture battlespace geometry well, but scale poorly to higher echelon for assessment of tactics. Current USMC modeling and simulation (M&S) and training approaches utilize inadequate federations of these capabilities2. A new approach is required to unify command, tactical and systems-level viewpoints and navigate the trade space of system concepts, Marine tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) development, and opposing force actions in a dynamic, complex battlespace including air, ground, maritime, subsurface, and electronic warfare components.

B. Program Description

The PROTEUS program will develop a new approach for scalable assessment and exploration of combined arms concepts in the urban environment by building on nascent capabilities for system composition and leveraging novel game mechanics and software architectures. The program deliverable will be an integrated software platform to enable dynamic and adaptive composition

2 For example, the “Interactive Tactical Decision Games” being utilized by 2/6 Marines illustrate the power of an accessible gaming/test environment approach for teaching small unit decision making, but do not consider many of the dimensions of interest here. (https://www.mcafdn.org/gazette/2017/04/decision-room) https://www.mcafdn.org/gazette/2017/04/decision-room of systems of task organization, assets and TTP’s that crosses multiple echelons of command (e.g., battalion to fire team) in a complex environment and an appropriately detailed virtual urban combat environment in which to assess the effectiveness of those composed systems. The resulting platform will enable Marines to explore how to adapt their systems to provide enhanced fires, targeting, spectrum operations, or other functions and develop new concepts of operation or tactics to realize dynamic mission needs.

The envisioned PROTEUS deliverable consists of a virtual test environment that encompasses a realistic but fictional urban combat environment. This virtual environment will assess the agility and lethality of a Marine task organization drawing from all elements (command, air combat, logistics combat, ground combat) of the MAGTF with approximately 150-200 Marines3. Given a notional scenario, an initial force laydown for both Marine and opposing force assets will populate the environment, with human participants controlling individual combatants or systems.

Leadership elements within the unit (from commander to fire team leaders) will be equipped with devices (“functional compilers”) that assess available units and systems, integrate this understanding with mission objectives, logistical constraints and current understanding of opposing forces, and recommend/compile (integrate) the best force composition to provide the required warfighting functions as the scenario evolves. As appropriate at each echelon of command, the commander/leader would then give the necessary orders to meet the objectives.

The test environment participants would then progress within the virtual environment to attempt to realize these objectives against opposing force participants, potentially also equipped with advanced battle management capabilities, attempting to defeat them. As the battle progresses or new information becomes available within the virtual environment, the participants will reengage the functional compiler to produce updated force compositions to provide enhanced agility and lethality.

The PROTEUS program will consist of three technical areas:

Technical Area 1 (TA1): Composable Operations Development Environment Technical Area 2 (TA2): Functional Compiler Technical Area 3 (TA3): Systems for Functions

Proposers are expected to focus on a single technical area. Proposals including more than one technical area will not be accepted. Although the majority of the program will be performed at the unclassified level, later portions may be classified (such as outcomes of the testing and demonstrations). Proposers should indicate how they would handle such situations.

At this time, TA3 proposers should only address the warfighting functions of Command and Control, Fires and Maneuver. DARPA will release a separate BAA for additional warfighting functions at a later date. TA3 proposers should select only a single warfighting function.

Although performer teams must individually address all program goals, metrics and milestones, DARPA expects performers to work collaboratively with one another. Given the diversity of approaches anticipated, it is critical to the success of the PROTEUS program that performers share information about their project achievements and challenges and provide insight, expertise and advice to other performer groups throughout the course of the program. All proposals must

3 Future task organization concepts of interest to the USMC are this scale, for example: https://www.mca-marines.org/sites/default/files/Compnay%20Landing%20Team%20II.pdf clearly describe plans for interfacing and integrating their proposed technologies/approaches with other teams.

Technical Area 1, Composable Operations Development Environment:

Performers in TA1 will develop the test environment used to explore functional composition and its impact on tactics across levels of command. The environment should focus on revealing the consequences of choices made in the environment within the complex dynamics of the adversarial contest between humans. The test environment will ingest systems data from TA3 and co-evolve with force composition decisions made using the TA2 functional compiler capability. The aforementioned shortcomings in existing capabilities motivate a “clean sheet” approach to a novel “mission engineering” tool to realize the goals of the program.

The test environment is a key enabler for the program and TA1 performers will:

Utilize innovative game mechanics and software architecture concepts to enable detailed assessment and exploration of the dynamic composition approach to combined arms operations in urban terrain

Provide the user interface for the command and tactical level instantiations of the platform, including the devices (e.g., virtual representation of a tablet or phone) for the TA2 functional compiler capability.

Clearly define an Application Programming Interface (API) or Software Development Kit (SDK), including data and interoperability requirements, for both TA2 and TA3 performers.

TA1 proposers should describe the basic mechanics of their innovative test environment approach, highlighting the following:

Test Environment Detail: Given the primary goal of the test environment of helping to judge the impact of choices in force composition and tactics, high fidelity simulation of the environment would impose a heavy computational burden without a comparable improvement in the assessment of choices. Describe what the key factors in the environment are and how they are represented to achieve quantitatively meaningful performance measures.

Assessment: Choices made by the participants and their consequences will need to be assessed both during and after each exercise (see Instrumentation below and program metrics). Describe the approach to obtaining meaningful performance assessment in the complex, multi-scale environment.

Scale: The events simulated in the test environment will depend on the actions of 150+ people in each force, in addition to a civilian population, over the course of an operation that might last for 45 days. Describe how the various scales in the development environment will be represented and managed.

Interaction: Interpersonal interactions greatly impact the outcomes of any wargaming activity, but are especially important in a platform designed to test an approach for enabling the initiative and creativity of the participants. Explain how will these be implemented and managed.

Architecture: Explain the underlying software architecture and how it will be utilized to enable all of the system requirements.

Given these goals, incremental extensions to or applications of existing Live-Virtual- Constructive (LVC) tools such as OneSAF, JSAF, MTWS, and VBS are explicitly not of interest.

Additionally, naïve approaches simply linking pre-existing game engines to render a command-and tactical-level game are also not of interest.

As appropriate for their environment architecture and mechanics, proposers to TA1 should consider and discuss the following attributes in their response:

Basic architecture and mechanics: An initial design review (see schedule) is expected to review in detail the environment concept prior to beginning software development.

Innovative mechanics4 that address the high dimensionality of the battlespace, particularly when logistics and spectrum are included, are of interest and proposers should be able to describe these without resorting to software.

User Interface/User Experience (UI/UX): Detail the UI/UX strategy and implementation plan to execute the mechanics.

Software architecture: Proposers should define a software architecture that achieves the goals of scalability, fidelity, and as appropriate to the game mechanics, a range of viewpoints (e.g., command, tactical, scenario designer). Approaches utilizing cloud-based, distributed software or scalable microservices approaches and multiple levels of abstraction that can be dynamically composed in context are of particular interest. Naïve data backplane strategies for combining multiple abstraction levels are not of interest.

AI development: Although the focus of the program is not AI development, standard “semi-automated” approaches using combinations of virtual tests with automated exploration of alternative outcomes using constructive simulation are incapable of capturing the richness of co-adaptive human decision making. Innovative approaches that can learn from and can adapt to player behaviors are of interest for both white cell and automated opposing force tactics development. Innovative approaches leveraging nascent techniques based on deep learning and economic/game theory are of interest as a means to sample the large space of possible outcomes without resorting to Monte Carlo techniques. As appropriate, proposers should also discuss how “Non-Player Character” (NPC) assets are defined in the development environment: current approaches in conventional game engines entail laborious manual definition of waypoints, paths and objectives that scale poorly.

Content management: Proposers should discuss their strategy for content definition, ingestion and management and how cost/schedule risks for content development will be

4 For example, the real time strategy (RTS) game Achron (http://www.achrongame.com/site/) uses an innovative time management mechanic. While this mechanic is too complicated for the Marine (or even the average RTS) user, and an RTS approach is itself inadequate, it is a unique example of exploring effects in time and space in an adversarial setting.

managed. For example, what will be the approach for definition of terrain, TA3-defined systems & tactics and TA2 approaches as manifested in “virtual apps” in the platform?

As appropriate to the proposed approach, how will urban terrain, including spectrum, be defined? Innovative approaches5 to doing so are of particular interest, and programmatic approaches to create urban terrain that contains key features as appropriate to game mechanics are acceptable. However, the urban terrain instantiated in the platform does not have to conform to any particular city or town.

Scenario generation: Proposers should describe how scenario generation is implemented, understanding the end user may be a military trainer tasked with training scenario construction or a command planner tasked with assessing the performance of an operational plan.

Instrumentation: How are performance of assets, teams, and tactics measured and recorded in the test environment? How do these metrics inform the end user (see UI/UX) and the AI in the platform? Of particular interest are integrated approaches that leverage the platform data to enrich the collection of tactics available to TA2 and TA3 performers.

Simple approaches to assess user workload as it pertains to the TA2 user interface are encouraged. Detailed and involved testing protocols involving intrusive measurements of player state are not of interest.

Finally, TA1 proposers should describe a plan for deliverables to include:

Final software deliverable, to be provided with unlimited or at minimum, Government

Purpose Rights, at the conclusion of each phase.

Data from the tests conducted using the test environment, including documentation for the form, content and format of data to enable implementation and use in future benchmarking or training scenarios

Technical Area 2: Functional Compiler

Performers in TA2 will develop an integrated dynamic composition capability to construct adaptive force packages, task organizations, and tactics (TTPs) “on the fly” to meet rapidly evolving mission needs. This capability will be embodied in a software tool that integrates capabilities that identify constraints, mix and match systems to provide desired functional outcomes, integrate systems with novel interoperability approaches, and provide adaptive planning to maximize resilience using mathematically principled approaches and algorithms.

This integrated functional composition tool should allow Marine users to compose functions in time and space. Proposers should recognize that this toolchain is a “human in the loop” system and as with TA1, novel approaches that integrate understanding of human factors with the mathematics and algorithms for composition are of primary interest.

5 E.g. Nascent data science tools enable automation of much of the definition of urban terrain (https://improbable.io/2016/03/17/disrupting-cities-through-technology-a-new-event-with-wilton-park), but defining building interiors and subsurface features for purposes of certain instantiations of the world are not currently addressed by any technology.

https://improbable.io/2016/03/17/disrupting-cities-through-technology-a-new-event-with-wilton-park

The resulting capability will be provided through affordances (i.e., the device with which the Marine is using the functional compiler) in the TA1 testbed. TA2 performers are responsible for the user interface with the capability in the virtual tablet, phone or other device. Realizations of this interface early in the program could likely be simple recommender systems for combinations of Marines, assets and tactics depending on the echelon of command. Later in the program, TA2 performers might develop a “warfighting function as a service” capability as the underlying composition and battle management algorithms are matured.

TA2 performers are expected to provide a Software Development Kit or API for ingestion of system properties from TA3. TA2 performers should define both friendly and opposing force instantiations of the tool, and define initial tactics for new composed system concepts. To benchmark the effectiveness of the dynamic composition approach, the opposing force in the test environment will initially plan and fight with no compiler. Precise implementation of opposing force capability is expected to be defined during the base phase of the program, but for planning purposes can be assumed to be implemented on commercial hardware (e.g., a virtual representation of a commercial smartphone) and integrate either player-defined TTP’s or opposing force TTPs as defined by TA3.

TA2 proposers should discuss their approach to provide an integrated dynamic composition capability, noting that a human is also in the loop and can potentially inject information or reasoning, including:

Problem representation: Given an input of the state of the battlespace, what are the mission objectives, current state and constraints that define and constrain a functional composition? Approaches using or enabling real-time qualitative reasoning, diagnosis, and inference are of interest.

System composition: What is composed to provide the desired function in space and time on the battlefield? Approaches to automatically compose and assess systems using novel mathematical formalisms are of interest.

System integration: Given potential interoperability issues (e.g. communications protocols), how can the elements communicate and convey state and actions to each other? Note this includes verifiable interoperability approaches but also includes coordination of humans across the MAGTF.

Adaptive execution: How is the functional composition of Marines and systems used?

While current task organizations and systems will start from TA3-defined TTPs, the development of novel TTPs for unusual task organizations and force packages is a primary goal of the program.

These approaches are expected to be integrated using mathematically principled formalisms that preserve information while unifying the various abstractions. Incremental extensions to and/or federations of standard system analysis (e.g., SysML) and conventional planning tools or approaches are explicitly not of interest. Finally, while highly innovative approaches that are currently being explored in other DARPA-sponsored efforts are of interest, proposers should note the program timeline when assessing possible approaches. The mathematical and algorithmic foundations should be mature enough for instantiation in the testbed within 6 months of proposed start. Proposers should clearly explain the mathematical basis and algorithmic maturity of each element of their proposed approach.

TA2 proposers should discuss the following aspects of their proposed capability:

User interface/User experience (UI/UX): Proposers should define how the functional composition capability will be presented to the command-level and tactical-level users.

This capability should include the ability to compose functions and tactics.

Enabling surprise and deception: Proposers should address approaches to leverage data from the TA1 environment to learn and explore novel TTPs.

Scalability: Proposers should discuss scalability in terms of functional breadth. While initial demonstrations are focused on kinetic functions, later phases of the program address functions that occur on widely variable spatial and temporal scales (e.g.

logistics).

Finally, TA2 proposers should describe a plan for deliverables to include:

Final software deliverable, to be provided with unlimited or at a minimum, Government

Purpose Rights, at the conclusion of each phase.

Data from the tests conducted using the test environment, including documentation for the form, content and format of data to enable implementation and use in future benchmarking or training scenarios

Technical Area 3: Systems for Functions

TA3 performers will define both Marine Corps and possible adversary systems and tactics to realize these functions at the unclassified level as described below. Performers in TA3 will provide models that define functional characteristics of systems being composed as well as tactics (TTP’s) associated with groupings of these systems. As noted above, for purposes of this solicitation, this “technical library” only includes systems supporting the warfighting functions of Command and Control (C2), fires and maneuver, and TA3 proposers should select only one function to address in their proposal. While the USMC definition of fires includes both lethal and non-lethal fires, only lethal fires are of interest at this time. The technical library will provide relevant inputs to enable virtual realization of the systems in the TA1 test environment as well as provide composable elements for the TA2 functional compiler.

TA3 performers will provide an inventory of systems that support these three warfighting functions (C2, maneuver and lethal fires). The TA3 technical library should include, but is not limited to:

Static and dynamic physical characteristics;

Performance models and/or data (e.g., radio frequency ranges, vehicle fuel burn curves);

A 3D model for visualization as appropriate in the TA1 environment;

Data or models for the behavior of the system (e.g., loss of GPS signal in a subterranean operation);

Aspects of the system which could affect how it is used with other systems to conduct tasks;

Functional data, including type of tasks the system supports, starting from the USMC Mission Essential Tasks/Mission Essential Task Lists (METs/METLs)6;

Tasks, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) associated with the systems and combinations of systems for the warfighting function of interest.

TA3 proposers should describe an iterative strategy for providing system data at the level of resolution able to drive real time interactive representation in the test environment and to provide types of system data which would be need to assess options and trades for various compositions as these capabilities are matured. TA3 proposers should also define what is anticipated in terms of software interfaces and formats in order to facilitate interaction with TA1 and TA2 performer teams.

TA3 proposers should define a palette of “ways to realize functions today” and “ways to realize functions in 2030.” For the latter, these are restricted to systems that are currently under development and at TRL 3 or above. For adversary assets, notional technologies are acceptable with publically available understanding of TTPs. TA3 proposers should define a plan to provide a final deliverable of the system libraries with description of format and content, noting software format, data type and description, provided with unlimited or Government purpose rights, for potential future use.

1.2. SCHEDULE/MILESTONES

There will be three phases in the PROTEUS program as shown in both Figures 1 and 2 below: an initial 18-month phase focused on capability maturation, benchmarking and demonstration; a second 9-month phase focused on an expanded set of warfighting functions; and a final 9-month phase culminating in a capstone demonstration addressing all warfighting functions.

Proposers to Technical Areas 1 and 2 should provide a technical and programmatic strategy that conforms to the entire 36-month program schedule, assuming Phase 1 as the Base Phase and Phases 2 and 3 as options, and presents an aggressive plan to fully address all program goals, metrics, milestones, and deliverables. The task structure is expected to be consistent across the proposed schedule, Statement of Work, and cost volume. TA1 and TA2 teams should plan for a preliminary design review shortly after program kickoff to review mechanics and architecture before substantive software development commences, and a comprehensive design review at the end of the first quarter of the program.

6 The Marine Corps Task List is a starting point:

http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Portals/172/Docs/MCTL/MCTL%20WordDoc%201%20APR%202017_MCCDC% 20Website%20PDF.pdf?ver=2017-04-17-102657-913 http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Portals/172/Docs/MCTL/MCTL%20WordDoc%201%20APR%202017_MCCDC%20Website%20PDF.pdf?ver=2017-04-17-102657-913 http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Portals/172/Docs/MCTL/MCTL%20WordDoc%201%20APR%202017_MCCDC%20Website%20PDF.pdf?ver=2017-04-17-102657-913

Proposers to Technical Area 3 should provide a technical and programmatic strategy for a single phase, 18 month period of performance as shown in Figure 2 that will coincide with the Base Phase efforts for TA1 and TA2 performers. A second BAA will be issued at a future date to solicit proposals from new TA3 teams to define assets that provide additional warfighting functions in Phases 2 and 3 of the program.

Figure 1: Program Timeline: Technical Areas 1 and 2

Figure 2: Program Timeline: Technical Area 3

Schedules will be synchronized across TA1, 2 and 3 performers in order to realize program demonstration goals as required, and monitored/revised as necessary throughout the program.

For proposal purposes, use the schedule below (with a target start date of February 1, 2018) to establish a program plan.

PROTEUS is divided into three program phases as outlined below, with milestones defined for each phase. As noted above, TA3 performers will have a single 18-month period of performance coinciding with Phase 1 with deliverables identified in Phase 1 below. The demonstration milestones are decision points for DARPA to determine which TA1 and TA2 performers will move forward into the option periods.

Phase 1 – Benchmarking/Kinetic Functions (18 months) TA1 and TA2 performers are expected to develop the test environment and compiler architectures, respectively, that are subsequently integrated and validated. The warfighting functions may be limited to demonstration of kinetic capability integrating Command and Control (C2), Fires, and Maneuver assets and TTPs, as defined by TA3 performers, across domains. The benchmarking demonstration at 12 months is expected to establish credibility with operational users by matching outcomes from a representative scenario from a Marine exercise or experiment as measured using both standard measures of performance and effectiveness and novel metrics accessible with the platform. The functional compiler should demonstrate the ability to assemble novel task organizations (e.g., combined mounted-dismounted units) seen in this scenario. The demonstration at 18 months should extend this scenario to demonstrate dynamic composition concepts with Marines playing both friendly and opposing forces, both with and without functional compiler capabilities, to illustrate the impact on metrics such as lethality/(cost-area).

Phase 2 – Extended Battlespace (9 months) TA1 and TA2 performers will further extend the testbed and composition capabilities, respectively. The warfighting functions are expected to be extended to demonstrate spectrum effects, limited integration of intelligence, and short duration (e.g., between 72 hours and 7 days) logistics. The demonstration at the end of this phase should include maneuver within and combined arms utilizing spectrum (e.g., jammed communications, localized C2 networks) as well as constraints to maneuver imposed by logistics needs (water, ammunition and fuel) to assess the scalability and dimensionality management of the both the platform and the functional compiler.

Phase 3 – Full Battlespace (9 months) TA1 and TA2 Performers will further extend the testbed and composition capabilities, respectively, to enable a capstone demonstration for the USMC. The warfighting functions will include all six functions and cover longer duration operations (e.g., up to 45 days). A notional demonstration is a brigade-scale conflict with fractionated expeditionary landing teams conducting prolonged operations in a peer-threat environment, which increases the temporal complexity and dimensionality. The demonstration should illustrate the ability to usefully assess and plan over multiple scales in high-dimensional space and time in the platform and the functional compiler.

Technical Area

Milestone Description Months after program kickoff

Phase 1 18-month PoP TA3 Define current friendly/opposing forces - ground 3 TA1 Demonstrate and benchmark multi-resolution scenario 6 TA2 Demonstrate integrated functional compiler using MAGTF assets 6 TA3 Define current friendly/opposing forces – air and sea 6 TA3 Define 2030 friendly/opposing forces - ground 9 TA1&2 Demonstrate an integrated capability using benchmark scenario 12 TA3 Define 2030 friendly/opposing – air and sea 12 TA1&2 Demonstration of adaptive composition capability with Marine participants

Phase 2 9-month PoP TA1 Demonstrate and benchmark a multi-resolution scenario 22 TA2 Demonstrate an augmented integrated functional compiler 22 TA2 Demonstrate a dynamically composed “warfighting as a function” app within the testbed

TA1&2 Demonstration of enhanced adaptive composition capability with Marine participants

Phase 3 9-month PoP

TA1 Demonstrate and benchmark a multi-resolution scenario 31 TA2 Demonstrate an augmented integrated functional compiler 31 TA2 Demonstrate a dynamically composed “warfighting as a function” app within the testbed for multiple functions

TA1&2 Capstone demonstration of adaptive composition capability with Marine participants

1.3. PROGRAM METRICS

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed solution in achieving the stated program objectives, proposers should note that the Government hereby promulgates the following program metrics that may serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. Although the following program metrics are specified, proposers should note that the government has identified these goals with the intention of bounding the scope of effort, while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in proposing solutions to the stated problem.

The PROTEUS test environment and dynamic composition capability is expected to enable assessment of performance metrics that cannot be assessed using current methods. Definition of absolute metrics for urban combat, composition effectiveness, and battle management capabilities is challenging and in general, metrics such as mission effectiveness or measures of performance are highly context dependent. The goals are to provide quantitative and qualitative reproduction of key factors in urban combat scenarios as judged by the Marine end-user and then to assess and understand the increase in mission effectiveness using the Agile Precision Warfighting approaches enabled by functional composition. Even this measure is scenario-dependent and conventional approaches to C2 or other core functions may fail (e.g. denied communications environments). Proposers should discuss how they will enable assessment of metrics using an integrated TA1-TA2-TA3 capability, and what information is required from the other TA’s to provide such measures. Below are potential metrics to be used although their applicability and computability depends on the approach being taken:

Lethality/(area-cost): Composable force structures should enable higher lethality as measured by elimination of opposing forces or denial of opposing force options, over a larger area, and with lower logistics burden and human cost (wounded in action/killed in action) than current task organizations with conventional force packages.

Agility: The change in measures of effectiveness (e.g. time to realize mission objectives) using a composable force should be qualitatively superior to a baseline task organization and force package.

Cost imposition: Cost in this context is not just economic or logistics cost, but also denial of strategic or tactical options as manifested in measures of agility for the opposing force.

Additionally, proposers are encouraged to offer additional metrics of their own, describe their performance against metrics used in a relevant urban warfare scenario, and propose improvements to aid in acceptance and transition.

1.4. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

Performers should plan on use of a Government-furnished cloud computing environment for code development, testing and program execution. This capability will be available by the program kickoff. Proposers should not budget for their own cloud or other computing infrastructure.

2. AWARD INFORMATION

2.1. 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, as applicable.

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section 6.2.11., “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/or cost/price within a reasonable time, and 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 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

2.2. FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH

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

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

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee7 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

3. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

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

7 As used throughout this BAA, awardee refers to anyone who might receive a prime award from the Government, including recipients of procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, Other Transactions, or any type of award. Subawardee refers to anyone who might receive a subaward from a prime awardee.

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

3.1. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

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

3.1.1.1. 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.

3.1.1.2. 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.

3.1.1.3. 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.

3.1.2. Non-U.S. Organizations

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.

3.1.3. Applicants Considering Classified Submissions

For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any…