HR001118S0030.pdf

HR001118S0030

Broad Agency Announcement

Operational Fires (OpFires) Propulsion System

Tactical Technology Office

March 21, 2018

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. OpFires Program Background and Overview B. OpFires Propulsion System Task Scope C. OpFires Propulsion System Task Plan

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review of Proposals

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title – Operational Fires (OpFires) Propulsion System Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001118S0030 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Proposers Day: February 14, 2018 o Posting Date: March 21, 2018 o Request Classified BAA Annex by: March 26, 2018 o Questions Due Date: April 14, 2018 o Abstract Due Date (Constituent Technologies only, no abstract for Propulsion

System): May 10, 2018 o Proposal Due Date and Time: May 10, 2018, 1:00PM eastern time

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The OpFires Propulsion System task will be a two-phased effort to design and develop innovative propulsion concepts and technologies enabling a novel ground-launched system for tactical weapons deployment.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – Approximately $35M for Propulsion System Design and Development.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

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

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

HR001118S0030@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001118S0030

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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 procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016. Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA. 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.

DARPA is seeking innovative propulsion solutions that will design capabilities for a mobile, ground-launched tactical weapon delivery system capable of carrying a variety of payloads to a variety of ranges. DARPA anticipates that successful performers for this program will have recent, relevant, and significant experience and expertise in propulsion system design and development to include booster performance analysis and missile integration. The use of a BAA allows a wide range of innovative ideas and concepts, and proposer(s) will have the flexibility to develop a tailored program plan that best advances OpFires in accordance with program objectives.

This BAA encompasses a two-phase effort for Propulsion System design and development. DARPA expects a single, full proposal that includes Phase 1 and Phase 2.

DARPA plans to award multiple Phase 1 base efforts with Phase 2 options to be exercised/awarded at the end of Phase 1 based on concept viability and program execution. This BAA also requests abstracts for component or Constituent Technologies that may enable novel propulsion concepts. Upon evaluation of abstracts, and pending funding availability, proposals may be requested for Constituent Technologies to facilitate possible award at a later date.

A. OpFires Program Background and Overview

The United States ground-based forces are currently limited in effective range of surface-to-surface precision fires. The OpFires program seeks to provide operational/theater level commanders with flexible capabilities to strike time sensitive targets while providing persistent standoff from unpredictable land launch positions. This flexibility would restore combatant commander options in force deployment and employment, enabling adaptable engagement at extended ranges.

The overarching goal of the OpFires program is to develop and demonstrate a novel ground-launched system enabling advanced tactical weapons to penetrate modern enemy air defenses and rapidly and precisely engage critical time sensitive targets. Specific capability objectives for the OpFires system and components are in the classified annex to this BAA.

DARPA-CG-969 provides instructions and guidelines on the classification/declassification of information and material associated with the OpFires program. Instructions for requesting the Classification Guide and classified annex are in Section IV., Application and Submission Information.

http://www.fbo.gov/

The OpFires program includes four main elements:

(1) This Propulsion System BAA, focused on innovative propulsion solutions for an advanced tactical weapon system. Proposals submitted for this effort must address the full scope of the program described herein.

(2) Abstracts for component or Constituent Technology. Submission of abstracts for component or Constituent Technologies that enable novel propulsion concepts are encouraged at this time. Abstracts may be unclassified. For additional details, see section IV.B.3.a.

(3) An ongoing study to define system and launcher characteristics. Results of this effort will be Government Furnished Information (GFI) to OpFires Propulsion System task awardees.

(4) A planned Weapon System Integration BAA, which may develop and integrate this propulsion effort into a missile system culminating in an integrated flight test campaign to demonstrate the end-to-end OpFires system. The Weapon System Integration BAA is anticipated to overlap with Phase 2 of this Propulsion System task (see Figure 1).

For clarity and consistency, the OpFires program will use the following system and component definitions:

Payload – the hardware that will separate from the booster and execute the flight to target;

Booster – all propulsion associated hardware that is launched from the ground vehicle including: control actuator system (CAS), the rocket motor/engine(s), interstage hardware, nozzles and separation systems. Does not include the shroud or Payload;

Missile – Payload, Booster, shroud (nose fairing) Canister – assembly/ launch tube to protect the missile during transport and storage All Up Round (AUR) – Missile and any other hardware that is launched from the ground vehicle, as well as its Canister.

Control Actuator System – the associated hardware that controls the flight of the vehicle. Can be applied to the AUR, Booster, or Payload;

Launch Platform – Ground vehicle or trailer and associated interface hardware from which the Missile will be launched.

B. OpFires Propulsion System Task Scope This BAA, OpFires Propulsion System, focuses on the early development and demonstration of innovative booster solutions, including, but not limited to, liquid and hybrid propellant mixtures, pintle motors, variable thrust nozzles, pulse motors, re-ignitable propellants, and other technologies that vary thrust and manage energy at scale for large tactical missiles.

Innovations such as these will need to maximize the operational range envelope of an integrated missile system and adapt to a variety of potential payloads. The Propulsion System task consists of two phases. Phase 1 will include booster preliminary design and proof of concept testing to demonstrate key elements of the propulsion system. Phase 2 will mature designs to critical design level and culminate in hot/static fire tests of at least two representative booster test articles traceable to an operational booster design. DARPA has developed a notional baseline schedule, shown in Figure 1, which includes the envisioned top-level program activities.

Figure 1. OpFires Program Schedule

Operational Booster Design The OpFires Propulsion System performer will derive operational booster performance and capability objectives from a performer-defined notional AUR concept that achieves the OpFires performance metrics contained in the classified annex. Include the following considerations when developing the operational booster design:

Summary results from initial AUR trade studies provided as GFI in the BAA Classified Annex. These results will be updated, as necessary, for Phase 1 awardees upon contract award.

Physical limits necessary to ensure compatibility with a future mobile ground launcher.

Payload insertion conditions and interfaces.

Environmental conditions and safety standards required for system operation in tactical, ground environments (refer to MIL-STD-810F and MIL-STD-882E) and additional guidance in the BAA Classified Annex.1

The performer is expected to use their operational booster objectives to conduct booster technology trade studies that fully explore innovative approaches balanced with technical feasibility to develop an optimal configuration. Trade studies should be evaluated using metrics that include, but are not be limited to, performance, cost, risk, military utility, and reliability.

Based on the results of these trade studies, the performer will develop a preferred operational booster design that meets derived booster performance and capability objectives.

The performer should describe key attributes of their operational booster concept, including, but

1 Performers are expected to provide a development path that achieves compliance within 60 months of Phase 1 award and justification for any planned divergence from published standards. Boosters used for tests and demonstrations associated with the OpFires program will be qualified to the relevant test environments.

not limited to, the elements described in the booster design data package deliverable outlined in section I.C. Figure 2 depicts a notional system development process for defining the test articles used to mature critical booster technologies.

Figure 2. Phases 1 & 2 matures innovative booster technologies at scale to support OpFires objectives

Critical Technologies The performer shall conduct an analysis to determine which key technologies, performance capabilities, and system attributes require maturation during Phase 1 and Phase 2 while deferring others for future technology/vehicle development activities (e.g., Phase 3). This assessment should consider the current state of the technology, available resources, program schedule and budget, as well as any additional factors considered relevant.

Risk Assessment The performer is expected to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that describes the performer’s overall approach to risk management. The plan should include a discussion of the methodology for risk identification, assessment, and handling and implement the risk methodology to characterize the risks associated with the critical technologies required for the operational booster. The same methodology to manage the risks is expected when executing the representative booster test article demonstrations and tracked in the RMP over the course of Phases 1 and 2. Booster risk reduction efforts should also highlight how Phase 1 and 2 activities contribute to the critical environmental and safety design criteria necessary for compatibility in tactical operating environments by the end of Phase 3 (approximately 60 months post-Phase 1 award).

Technology Maturation Plan The performer should develop a comprehensive Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) that fully describes the representative booster test article demonstration technical objectives, analysis and test approach, schedule, and cost. The TMP should use the risks identified in the RMP and define the contractor’s overall approach to risk mitigation that will achieve desired maturation of the critical enabling technologies to support their operational booster design. The plan should include analysis, test, and demonstration objectives and descriptions for at least two Technology Maturation Events (TMEs) and any other planned technology maturation activities.

Build and Test a Representative Booster Test Article The performers will develop representative booster test articles and test plans that incorporate key technologies and design elements that are traceable to the operational booster design. As a technology demonstrator, the goal of the representative booster test articles are to mature and execute affordable demonstrations of the critical technologies that will validate the feasibility of the operational booster design in lieu of a full operational booster prototype.

Performers should consider the risk of component technologies for the representative booster test articles and ensure there is sufficient maturity to execute the planned test program. It is recognized that not all operational booster performance capabilities and attributes may be demonstrated with the test articles and performers are challenged to develop an approach that maximizes technology maturation and validation of enabling technologies within program cost and schedule. The design, analysis, and testing of the representative boosters are expected to demonstrate that the concepts are technically mature enough to support future weapon system integration under Phase 3 of the OpFires program.

The booster test program will include at least two significant TMEs. TME1, complete prior to the end of Phase 1, will demonstrate design proof-of-concept and serve as a critical risk reduction event. TME2 is the culminating design validation event, completed prior to the end of Phase 2, and will include at least two hot/static fires of booster representative test articles.

Proposers may offer alternate test approaches for both TMEs, but such approaches must support proposer-defined technology maturation objectives.

C. OpFires Propulsion System Task Plan The OpFires Propulsion System task defined in this BAA will be conducted in two phases (Phase 1 base period and Phase 2 option period). Proposers should propose their own more detailed schedule tailored to their unique Propulsion System design and technology maturation approach. The proposed schedule should include additional key program events such a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR), Interim Design Reviews, or component tests. The proposed schedules should also show additional key events that are unique to the proposer's approach. The government anticipates that the schedules and work breakdown structures provided will be, at a minimum, a level 4 breakdown to allow the government to understand the realism of the proposed work and timelines for completion of the underlying tasks. The following sections describe the specific technical objectives of Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Phase 1: Phase 1 will be a 12-month effort, with 6-month milestones, conducted by multiple (~3) performer teams. The objectives of this phase are to generate a preliminary operational booster design supported by analysis and identify critical enabling technologies to be addressed in an affordable and executable TMP. Phase 1 will include a proof-of-concept TME where the performer will demonstrate key elements of their propulsion system design and benchmark performance. Phase 1 will conclude with the out brief of TME1 results.

Phase 2: Phase 2 option awards will be based on overall Phase 1 contract performance, technical performance demonstrated by the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) design, proof-of-concept results achieved by TME1, and funds availability. Phase 2 will be a 12-month effort, with 6-month milestones, executed by approximately two performer teams. The objective of Phase 2 is to mature the operational booster preliminary design developed in Phase 1 to a critical design, further execute the TMP, and include analysis and additional ground testing to mature and demonstrate propulsion performance in representative test articles during hot fire/static fire test events (TME2).

Deliverables: Propulsion System Task deliverables motivate progressively increasing levels of system design maturity as the effort proceeds. Table 1 provides expectations on these deliverables at key points in the program, which should be scheduled, at a minimum, every six months. The Propulsion System performers should define any additional deliverables as part of their plan to interact with Weapon System Integration Task performers to facilitate booster integration into an AUR. To support the planned weapon system integration task and other future transition opportunities, DARPA expects unlimited data rights for all deliverables provided under this effort. A list of all proposed deliverables, including any limited data rights expectations and the assertion for those claims, shall be provided in the proposal.

Table 1: Propulsion System Task Deliverables

Item Deliverable Kickoff PDR End of Phase 1

CDR End of Phase 2

1 Milestone data packages and presentations working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance

2 Integrated Master Schedule Due Updated Updated Updated Final 3 Risk Management Plan Due Updated Final 4 Booster Specifications Due Updated Updated Final 5 Booster Interface Control

Documents (ICDs) Due Updated Updated Final

6 Notional AUR performance data package (See Table 2 for details)

Due Updated Updated Final

7 Booster design data package (See Table 2 for details)

Due Updated Updated Final

8 Technology Maturation Plan

Updated Updated Updated Updated Final

9 Booster test article designs, including traceability to operational booster stack

Due Updated Final

10 Test plans (TME1 and TME2, at a minimum)

Due Updated Updated Final

Item Deliverable Kickoff PDR End of Phase 1

CDR End of Phase 2

11 Test results and analyses for all major risk reduction activities

As required

As required

As required

Final

Table 2: Booster design and AUR performance deliverable details

Booster design data package contents (Deliverable #7)

Integrated AUR performance data package contents (Deliverable #6)

Booster CAD model, dimensioned drawings, materials

Full set of design data similar to entries in Chemical Propulsion Information Agency (CPIA) manuals. Data to include but not limited to:

o Mass breakdown; propellant mass fraction o Ballistics data including specific impulse, total impulse, thrust and pressure profiles at hot, cold and ambient soak temperatures o Igniter description o Propellant formulation and hazard classification Models and/or data to substantiate performance deltas resulting from throttle variability (if applicable)

Booster performance System (AUR) mass properties Aerodynamic performance:

o System CAD files o Aerodynamic tables o Control actuator system or thrust vector control specifications o Data pedigree

Note: Booster and AUR performance data packages shall also explicitly state and substantiate any key assumptions and/or initial conditions used to conduct analysis

In addition to the deliverables outlined above, the performer shall also provide the following:

Monthly technical and financial status reports Monthly Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) updates, MS Project format Final Report

Design Reviews: The Performer will execute a PDR and a Critical Design Review (CDR) with content and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard (e.g., Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) guidelines available at https://dag.dau.mil and MIL-STD-1521B are suggested sources) for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation of the operational booster, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable booster technology maturation progress and achievements. OpFires propulsion system design review expectations for those aspects of the program are outlined below followed by specific PDR and CDR guidance and incorporated into the performer’s comprehensive list of tailored design review criteria. The tailored PDR and CDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored PDR and CDR content checklists, will need to be provided in the proposal to allow the government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

General:

https://dag.dau.mil/

Requirements Development - A complete set of operational booster requirements is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy (i.e., system, subsystem, and component) for the subject review. Each requirement must include verification provisions, must be traceable to a source and be validated for incorporation into the system baseline. System interfaces are identified and documented.

Design Definition - The preferred operational booster system architecture is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy for the subject review, is traceable to and satisfies established requirements, and is sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition. Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

Risk Management - Technical risks are identified and assessed (e.g., consequence and likelihood). Mitigation plans are in place along with associated completion criteria.

Technical risks have been updated with results of any mitigation activities.

Technology Maturation - Booster system attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives have been documented. The representative booster test article design is documented, including traceability to and planned deviations from the operational booster design.

PDR

Requirements Development - Booster (Level 1) and subsystem (Level 2) requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., Analysis, Integration, Test, Demonstration) are identified. Level 1 requirements must be traceable to a notional AUR concept that meets BAA performance metrics. Booster external interfaces are documented.

Design Definition – Assess the allocated design documented in subsystem product specifications for each configuration item in the system. Operational booster preliminary design is complete to the subsystem level (Level 2), closes around documented requirements, adequately demonstrates that performance achieves minimum and maximum threshold ranges, and volumetric efficiency is sufficient for AUR to fit a Heavy Mobile Tactical Truck or trailer.

Risk Management – Risks must include operational booster design risks and representative booster test article test execution risks.

Technology Maturation - TMP demonstrates that desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned TMEs within program budget and schedule. TME test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept.

CDR

Requirements Development – Booster component (Level 3) requirements are complete.

Verification approach for each requirement has been established. Traceability of requirements across all levels the system hierarchy must be documented. Internal interfaces between major booster subsystems are documented along with requirements allocated to each side of the interface.

Design Definition - Operational booster critical design is complete to the component level (Level 3) and achieves compliance with all associated requirements.

Risk Management – No additional guidance.

Technology Maturation - Initial TME results support proceeding with planned hot/static fires of booster representative test articles.

The system hierarchy described above (Booster – Level 1, Subsystem – Level 2, Component – Level 3) is notional and may be replaced by the performer’s preferred topology so long as Level 3 of that topology is the lowest level of indenture in the performer’s system architecture.

Propulsion System Task design reviews and data package development will be incorporated in the performer’s system development process with required content provided via the appropriate Table 1 deliverable.

D. Government Management Approach and Operations

The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government Program Office is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which may be augmented with Government-led Integrated Product Teams (IPT) for targeted technical disciplines, for example, systems engineering, propulsion, missile integration, test safety, etc.

The performers will interface with the Government team via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level and quarterly program management reviews. The proposers are asked to provide a management approach to allow for collaboration with the Government team to ensure a successful program.

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, as applicable.

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

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

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein 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 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

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

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

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

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

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

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

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

b) Government Entities Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations.

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.

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.

3. Classified Proposals

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 Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil.

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;

http://www.dss.mil/

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.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement including its classified annex, 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.

1. Security Classification Guide and DD 254

A formal request for the OpFires Security Classification Guide and DD254 may be emailed to HR001118S0030@darpa.mil and include erin.olson.ctr@darpa.mil and/or daniel.greenbaum@darpa.mil. Requests for the Security Classification Guide should include, at a minimum, the company name and address; POC name, phone number and email address;

Facility Security Officer (FSO) name, phone number, and e-mail address; and CAGE code.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/ mailto:HR001118S0030@darpa.mil mailto:erin.olson.ctr@darpa.mil mailto:daniel.greenbaum@darpa.mil

1. Classified BAA Annex

A BAA annex with information at the Secret level can be requested via e-mail to HR001118S0030@darpa.mil. Requests for the classified BAA annex should include, at a minimum, the company name, technical POC name and phone number, Facility Security Officer (FSO) name and phone number, CAGE code, statement of facility clearance and safeguarding capability, and a valid address for receiving classified material at the secret level. DARPA will verify the facility clearance and the clearance of the recipient before mailing the classified material. Further handling instructions will accompany the Classified Annex.

Proposers should allow at least five (5) business days for processing requests for the classified BAA annex plus time for delivery. Requests for this information will not be accepted after March 26, 2018.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font.

Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

1. Abstract Format (Component or Constituent Technology Only, not requested for Propulsion System):

Proposers submitting abstracts for component or constituent technologies related to novel propulsion approaches will follow the same general format found in IV.B.2, including specifically A, C, D, and F. Submissions are limited to three (3) pages, excluding the cover page. The cover page format is provided below in IV.B.2(a) Section I: Administrative; substitute “abstract” where “proposal” is found.

2. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The proposal shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page (where a "page" is 8-1/2 by 11 inches, margins not smaller than 1 inch, and line spacing not smaller than single-spaced). Fold-outs up to 11 by 17 inches may be used, but will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal.

The maximum page limit for Volume I Section II (Technical Details) is 50 pages, excluding sections that are not page limited. Recommended page counts for individual elements of the proposal are shown in braces { } below.

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

DARPA.

mailto:HR001118S0030@darpa.mil

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

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001118S0030);

(2) Technical area (i.e., Propulsion System or Component Technology);

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

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

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

NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

Section II: Technical Details

A. Executive Summary {5}: Provide an executive-level description of key elements and unique features of the proposed OpFires Propulsion System program. The Executive Summary should also include a top-level schedule that outlines the proposer’s overall vision and approach to executing the full OpFires Propulsion System task through the Phase 2 demonstration tests. The proposer should also describe similar efforts completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area, including identification of other Government sponsors.

B. Operational Booster Point of Departure Design {10}: Describe the likely operational booster point of departure design that will serve as the foundation of the proposed effort.

Describe the approach for deriving booster performance from the OpFires missile performance objectives contained in the BAA Classified Annex and demonstrate how the booster design fits within the larger OpFires system. Demonstrate a capability to perform AUR performance analysis, given considerations in the Classified Annex, and use that information to derive the appropriate booster performance attributes. Demonstrate an understanding of launcher compatibility considerations and balance those considerations with Missile performance to further define the booster design envelope. Fully describe the booster physical characteristics, predicted booster performance and resulting Missile performance. Describe the basis for these performance predictions (e.g., modeling and simulation, empirical data, analogous system) and provide substantiating data.

C. Technology Maturation Plan {20}: Provide an initial TMP that details the technical approach for accomplishing the OpFires Propulsion System program objectives and serves as the basis for the Statement of Work (SOW), IMS, and Cost Volumes (described below). The TMP will provide an integrated basis for maturing the booster design and mitigating risk to enable hot/static fire test events within 24-months of contract award.

The TMP will: 1) identify, assess and prioritize critical technologies and system attributes that constitute the major technical and system integration risks on the program; 2) identify major risk reduction tests and demonstrations required to validate the ability to achieve component and system level performance goals, culminating with a hot/static fire tests at the end of Phase 2; 3) describe each test activity proposed for Phase 1 and Phase 2, including rationale for the test, test objectives, test scale, proposed test facility, and success metrics; and 4) provide an assessment of the technical maturity achieved at the end of Phase 2.

D. Proposed Team {4}: Provide a clearly defined organization chart for the program team, which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team members; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the tasks and responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year. Identify key personnel by name and include a description of their role. Key personnel identified in the proposal will be listed in the resulting contract/agreement and will include limitations on substitutions.

E. Management Approach {6}: Provide a management plan that describes the proposed system development processes and management approach to support successful OpFires Propulsion System program execution.

Provide an overview of the system development processes to be used along with the organizational responsibilities and authority for the development effort. Describe the development approach to facilitate the final operational booster design and ensure that it meets program objectives. Describe how key system knowledge acquired during the program will be captured, as well as describe the use of key tracking measures to enable efficient assessment of program progress. Describe ongoing design update activities, including integration of test results and support to Phase 3 Weapon System Integration contractors.

Identify the IPT structure and plan for coordination with a Weapon System Integrator to ensure that the operational booster design accounts for OpFires system constraints. This should include considerations for regular interchange meetings and the data products required to facilitate booster integration into an AUR. Describe how activities will be managed and integrated across geographically and/or organizationally separate team elements. Describe the proposed approach to subcontractor management, quality control, safety, and security. Describe the proposed level of Government interaction to facilitate efficient interactions and streamlined decision making.

Include in the management plan, the proposed programmatic approach to cost, schedule, and risk management. Although formal Earned-Value Management (EVM) is not required for the program, the proposer is expected to meet the intent and describe how they will provide ongoing assessment of technical and programmatic progress against the program plan, critical path, schedule and cost. Define the content of technical and financial progress reports to enable efficient program monitoring, tracking, and reporting.

Program management tools should be the same tools used internally to manage the program. No additional unique information for the Government is desired or required.

F. Relevance to DARPA Mission {5}: Describe the relevance of the proposed operational booster to the DARPA mission. In particular, describe the relevance and novelty of the proposed operational booster and maturation plan to the OpFires application. Describe the level of technology maturity that will be achieved if their proposed program is successful and outline the remaining activities that would be required to fully mature and integrate the propulsion system into Phase 3 flight demonstrations.

G. Resumes {no page limit}: Short resumes, limited to two pages each, shall be provided for all identified key personnel. Resumes should detail the proposed personnel’s qualifications and experience to perform the tasks associated with their proposed role on the OpFires Propulsion task.

H. Data Rights {no page limit}: Proposers responding to this BAA must submit a separate list of all technical data or computer software that will be furnished to the Government with other than unlimited rights. Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. The Government will assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property restrictions in their proposals.

For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.3.h of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

I. Statement of Work {no page limit}: In plain English, define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed in Phases 1 and 2, their durations, and dependencies among them.

Employ a common work breakdown structure (WBS) for numbering all activities in the proposed SOW, IMS, and cost volume. Detail major hardware and software component development and test activities to Level 4 or below such that there is a direct correlation between material purchases and individual items, understanding of individual test composition and cost, etc. A less detailed WBS breakdown is acceptable for level-of-effort type tasks such as program management, program control, etc.. For each task/subtask, the SOW shall include:

A general description of the objective…