HR001119S0008.pdf

HR001119S0008

Broad Agency Announcement

Glide Breaker

TTO

November 6, 2018

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background and Overview B. Program and Risk Management Approach C. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

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 – Glide Breaker Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001119S0008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: 6 November 2018 o Questions Due Date: 20 November 2018 o Proposal Due Date and Time: 21 December 2018 at 5pm Eastern Standard Time

Concise description of the funding opportunity – Glide Breaker will develop an enabling technology critical for an advanced interceptor capable of defeating hypersonic vehicles. Key aspects of the Glide Breaker program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of Glide Breaker will be eligible for funding under this BAA. DARPA seeks proposals that present a credible path to a low cost, rapid demonstration of program objectives (see Figure 1 for a notional schedule).

Anticipated Individual Awards - Single Award (additional awards possible pending funding availability) o DARPA will consider up to and no more than two (2) separate proposals per organization in response to this solicitation.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or other transaction Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001119S0008@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001119S0008

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background and Overview

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 following technical area: counter-hypersonics. 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.

Glide Breaker intends to advance the United States’ (U.S.) means to counter hypersonic vehicles. This BAA solicits proposals to develop and demonstrate a technology that is critical for enabling an advanced interceptor capable of engaging maneuvering hypersonic threats in the upper atmosphere (Figure 1). The Glide Breaker Program may request proposals for separate and additional technology development work through a separate BAA in the mid-fiscal year 2019 (FY19) timeframe, subject to DARPA’s discretion and funding availability.

Figure 1: Notional Glide Breaker Schedule (See Section I.C below for detailed milestone descriptions)

Key aspects of the Glide Breaker program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of Glide Breaker will be eligible for funding under this BAA.

Instructions for requesting the classified addendum are in Section IV.A of this BAA.

The classified addendum will include the SECRET collateral threat briefing presented during the 10 July 2018 Glide Breaker Proposers Day.

B. Program and Risk Management Approach

The component technology development effort will culminate in an applicable capability demonstration. This demonstration will be used as part of an analysis to show capability in an end-to-end engagement. The Glide Breaker program seeks technology solutions that meet program objectives as defined in the Classified Addendum.

The effort should include regular teleconferences to inform the Government of program, design, and development details. At substantial decision points, in-person reviews should be held to inform the Government and solicit Government input balancing objectives and risk (see Section I.C. “Major Review Descriptions and Expectations” below). The program management should aggressively identify technical risks and resource parallel risk reduction paths early in and throughout the program.

Throughout the design process, analysis of alternatives should be used to select configurations, and hardware components and subsystems should be tested to failure to verify design margin. Testing and experiments should include variations of design in areas where no validated models exist or the unit under test falls outside model validation. Early hardware testing is vital to later success of the assembled prototype and is expected by the Government throughout the program.

Performance beyond program objectives providing design margin is sought where no or modest additional risk is incurred.

C. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

The Performer will execute a System Requirements Review (SRR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), and Test Readiness Review (TRR) 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; DoD Instruction 5000.02, Enclosure 3: 7. TECHNICAL REVIEWS is one suggested source) for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program. Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation of the technology, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. Glide Breaker system design review expectations for those aspects of the program are outlined below, followed by specific SRR, PDR, CDR, and TRR guidance. The tailored SRR, PDR, CDR, and TRR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored SRR, PDR, CDR, and TRR content checklists, will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

General:

Requirements Development - A complete set of technology demonstration system performance and design requirements is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy (i.e., system, subsystem, and component) for the subject review.

https://dag.dau.mil/

Each requirement must include verification provisions. System interfaces are identified and documented.

Design Definition - The conceptual design of the operational system architecture is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy for the subject review, 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 – System attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives have been documented. The representative test article design is documented.

SRR

Requirements Development – Requirements are complete and preliminary interfaces are defined.

Conceptual Design – Technology conceptual design is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. A pathway to the preliminary design is identified.

Software Development –A software development plan, including verification and validation approach, is complete

Trade Studies – The results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach are presented.

Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to a Bill of Materials (BOM) cost that meets cost metrics.

PDR

Requirements Development – Interface and requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., Analysis, Integration, Test, and Demonstration) are identified and external interfaces are documented.

Design Definition – Assess the allocated design documented in subsystem requirements.

Preliminary design is complete to the subsystem / configuration item level, closes around documented requirements, adequately demonstrates that performance achieves minimum and maximum threshold ranges, and meets SWaP-C constraints.

Software Development – A development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress is complete.

Risk Management – Risks must include all design risks.

Technology Maturation - Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within program budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept.

Cost – Revised BOM cost based on preliminary design is documented and within established cost metrics.

CDR

Requirements Development – All requirements are complete. Verification approach for each requirement has been established. Internal interfaces between subsystems are documented.

Design Definition – Critical designs are complete to the component level (Level 3) and achieve compliance with all associated requirements.

Cost – Final design costs are documented and within cost metrics.

TRR

The TRR verifies that the planned tests meet the Governments’ expectations of the necessary demonstration, by proving accomplishment of performance requirements prior to expending limited hardware. The TRR should be conducted substantially ahead of the demonstration to allow adjustments based on Government feedback. Demonstration unit design and instrumentation for recording data associated with major performance requirements should be reviewed. Limitations of the test should be discussed and possible mitigations considered.

Prior to the TRR, the performer should confirm the following criteria:

All hardware is available or will be delivered in time with reasonable margin for system integration and demonstration;

All firmware/software is in final system simulation evaluation and under configuration control;

The test article(s) and the procedures and plans for their use have been submitted to the safety entity responsible for evaluating the test safety;

Training material is complete for personnel to be involved in the testing concerning the objectives of the test(s) and the jobs personnel are responsible for accomplishing;

Resources (people, equipment, and materials) needed to accomplish the testing are available and ready for the testing;

The equipment, facilities, and ranges (if applicable) are evaluated as ready for test; and Documentation of evaluations, assessments, plans, procedures, training, and other factors applicable to the tests are available for Government review.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

A single award is anticipated, however multiple awards are possible. 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, and other factors.

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.

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.

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

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 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;

Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

http://www.dss.mil/

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

Key aspects of the Glide Breaker program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of Glide Breaker will be eligible for funding under this BAA.

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement with its classified addendum, 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 Glide Breaker Security Classification Guide and DD254 may be emailed to HR001119S0008@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 Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code.

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

2. Classified BAA Addendum

The classified addendum in support of this BAA can be requested via e-mail to HR001119S0008@darpa.mil. Requests for the addendum should include, at a minimum, the organization name, technical POC name and phone number, 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 via express mail. DARPA will verify the facility clearance and the clearance of the recipient before mailing the classified material. If the classified mailing address is not authorized for express mail, this should be indicated in the request and the addendum package will be sent via registered mail. Further handling instructions will accompany the Classified addendum.

Proposers should allow at least five (5) business days for processing requests for the classified BAA addendum plus time for delivery.

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. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included in a single proposal. 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 (composed of three sections), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page lengths for each section are shown in brackets [ ] below;

pages beyond this limit may not be read or considered for review. The recommended page lengths for each sub-section are shown in braces { } below; proposers may adjust the number of sub-section pages as they see necessary as long as the number of pages for the overall section remains under the maximum indicated in brackets [ ]. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 43 pages, exclusive of Section III.

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.

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

mailto:HR001118S0042@darpa.mil

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative [1]

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001119S0008);

(2) Technical area;

(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 Proposal [42]

A. {5} Problem statement review and identification of key challenges

a. Describe the technical challenge and key design drivers based on the threat capability B. {12, 1 page per technology} Proposer’s existing technology and facilities

a. Describe the proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research or technology areas

i. State the development timeline and cost of the technology

ii. Identify the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the technology and describe how the TRL has been verified

iii. Identify the customer of technology including a point of contact

b. Existing performer facilities to be leveraged can also be described in this section C. {10} Innovative concept and technical rationale

a. Discuss the conceptual solution that addresses Glide Breaker threats and associated key challenges

b. State the innovative claims for the proposed research. Succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

c. Discuss how this technology supports technology transition D. {10} Development plan and Description of deliverables

a. Technical approach and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation

b. Clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them

c. Notional schedule identifying sequence of tasks and deliverables

d. Describe the systems engineering approach, addressing unique aspects of the approach

e. Provide details and rationale for any tailoring to milestone reviews (SRR, PDR, CDR, TRR) described in Section I.C. of this BAA

f. Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path

i. Detailed description of tests, demonstrations, and experiments of alternatives

ii. Technical and Technology deliverables, such as reports, technical design reviews, hardware deliveries, business case, value stream map, transition story, etc. This should also address mitigation of life-cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section IV.B.2.h of this BAA., “Intellectual Property.”

E. {2} Organization/personnel chart

a. The programmatic relationship of team members

b. The unique capabilities of team members

c. The task of responsibilities of team members

d. The teaming strategy among the team members

e. The key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year. DARPA requires key personnel identified in the proposal to be assigned as proposed, and the resulting contract/agreement will indicate no substitution shall be made without prior approval of the Government.

F. {2} Other Transaction Milestones. If proposing an OT, provide description of milestone cost and accomplishments, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the primes and major subcontractors, total cost, and any company cost share. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort). Where the effort consists of multiple portions that could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each.

Additionally, proposals should clearly explain the technical approach(es) that will be employed to meet or exceed each program metric and provide ample justification as to why the approach(es) is/are feasible. The milestones must not include proprietary information.

G. {1} Description of Security Management architecture and/or approach for the proposed effort. Detail unique additional security requirements regarding OPSEC, program protection planning, test planning, transportation plans, work being performed at different classification levels, and/or utilizing test equipment not approved at appropriate classification level.

Section III: Technical Supporting Materials [unlimited]

A. {unlimited} Resumes for Key Personnel B. {unlimited} Statement of Work (SOW) – In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed. The SOW should capture the technical development plan. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW. The proposer shall employ a common work breakdown structure (WBS) for numbering all activities in the SOW, IMS, and cost proposal. Major hardware and software component development and test activities shall be detailed to a level consistent with task descriptions (desired 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.

The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

A detailed description of the approach to be taken to accomplish each defined task/activity The completion criteria for each task/activity - a product, event or milestone that defines its completion Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (to be performed by either an awardee or subawardee) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable Please provide an editable version of the SOW with the electronic copy. A separate SOW is required for each subproposer or team member.

C. {unlimited} Integrated Master Schedule (MS Project desired but not required) – The IMS shall detail all of the proposed program activities. The IMS shall detail the specific tasks to be accomplished, their interrelationship. The IMS should be provided at the same or lower level of detail as the SOW.

D. {unlimited} Consolidated List of Proposer Rights – In this section, proposers must submit a consolidated list of all program deliverables (e.g. hardware, software, reports, data, drawings, etc.) that will be furnished to the Government with less than unlimited data rights (e.g. government purpose rights or limited data rights) by the proposer and any sub-proposers or team members. If there are no government purpose or limited data rights claims, this should be stated. The Government will assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property restrictions in their proposals. In cases where limited data rights are asserted, the basis for that claim should be clearly explained and the specific limitations should be identified in the proposal. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.2.h of this BAA.

b) Volume II, Cost Proposal

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001119S0008);

(2) Technical area;

(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), and electronic mail (if available);

(10) Award instrument requested: cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), cost-contract—no fee, cost sharing contract – no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), or Other Transaction;

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

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

(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

(14) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract

Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

(15) Date proposal was prepared;

(16) DUNS number;

(17) TIN number;

(18) CAGE Code;

(19) Subawardee Information; and

(20) Proposal validity period.

Additional Cost Proposal Information A. Supporting Cost and Pricing Data

The proposer should include supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates. The proposal should include a description of the method used and the basis of estimates used to estimate costs and supporting documentation.

The realism of the total cost should be addressed in the proposal. This may be addressed, for example, by comparison to previous efforts that were of a similar size, scope and complexity, or by explaining other approaches that were used to establish the total cost of the program. The realism of the total cost estimation techniques should also be substantiated, where possible, by showing the as-bid cost and schedule as well as the at-completion cost and schedule of previous S&T efforts of similar size, scope and complexity. Additionally, allocations for tasks in the cost proposal should include a task-level basis of estimate. The Government strongly encourages that tables included in the cost proposal also be provided in an editable (e.g., MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact to allow traceability of the cost proposal numbers across the prime and subcontractors. NOTE: If PDF submissions differ from the Excel submission, the PDF will take precedence.

B. Cost Breakdown Information and Format

Total cost estimate to include:

Basis for realism of total cost Comparison to efforts of similar size, scope and complexity Discussion of other cost estimation techniques utilized

Detailed cost breakdown to include:

Total program costs broken down by major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs; overhead charges, etc.) and further broken down by task and phase

Major program tasks by fiscal year An itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs

(vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be provided

An itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined by FAR

2.101 – Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs (vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be provided, including a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding for prime and all sub-awardees.

A summary of projected funding requirements by month The source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing, if any Identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.)

Per FAR 15.403-4, certified cost or pricing data shall be required if the proposer is seeking a procurement contract award per the referenced threshold, unless the proposer requests and is granted an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. Certified cost or pricing data are not required if the proposer proposes an award instrument other than a procurement contract (e.g., a grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction).

a. Subawardee Proposals

The awardee is responsible for compiling and providing all subawardee proposals for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)/ Agreements Officer (AO), as applicable. Subawardee proposals should include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements. Where the effort consists of multiple portions that could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each. Subawardee proposal documentation should be prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the awardee’s proposal. This includes a Statement of Work and Cost Proposal. See “Additional Cost Proposal Information,” above.

All proprietary subawardee proposal documentation that cannot be uploaded with the proposed awardee’s proposal shall be provided to the Government either by the awardee or by the subawardee organization when the proposal is submitted. Subawardee proposals submitted to the Government by the proposed awardee should be submitted in a sealed envelope.

Subawardee proposals submitted to the Government by the subawardee should be submitted separately via DARPA's BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil). The subawardee must provide the same number of copies to the PCO/AO as is required of the awardee. See Section IV.B.3.a of this BAA for proposal submission information.

b. Other Transaction Requests

The Government may award either a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract or an Other Transaction for Prototype (OT) agreement for prototype system development.

All proposers requesting an OT must include a detailed list of milestones. Each milestone must include the following:

milestone description, completion criteria, due date, and payment/funding schedule (to include, if cost share is proposed, awardee and Government share amounts).

It is noted that, at a minimum, milestones should relate directly to accomplishment of program technical metrics as defined in the BAA and/or the proposer’s proposal. Agreement type, expenditure or fixed-price based, will be subject to negotiation by the Agreements Officer.

Do not include proprietary data.

DARPA provides more information regarding OTs at the following location:

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

2. Additional Proposal Information

a) Proprietary Markings

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information in their proposals. Submissions containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such information clearly marked with a label such as “Proprietary.” NOTE:

“Confidential” is a classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary business information.

b) Security Information http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

(1) Program Security Information

Proposers should include with their proposal any proposed solution(s) to program security requirements unique to this program. Common program security requirements include but are not limited to: operational security (OPSEC) contracting/sub-contracting plans; foreign participation or materials utilization plans; program protection plans (which may entail the following) manufacturing and integration plans; range utilization and support plans (air, sea, land, space, and cyber); data dissemination plans; asset transportation plans; classified test activity plans; disaster recovery plans; classified material/asset disposition plans and public affairs/communications plans.

(2) Classified Submissions For a proposal that includes both classified and unclassified information, the proposal should be separated into an unclassified portion and a classified portion. The proposal should include as much information as possible in the unclassified portion and use the classified portion ONLY for classified information. The unclassified portion can be submitted per the instructions in Section IV.B.3.a, below. The classified portion must be provided separately, according to the instructions outlined in this section.

(a) Classified Proposal Markings

At this time, DARPA anticipates that proposals submitted in response to this BAA may generate or involve access to classified information. Classified submissions shall be transmitted and marked in accordance with the following guidance. Security classification guidance via a Security Classification Guide (SCG) and/or DARPA DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” will be provided per Section IV.A.1.

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

Submissions requiring DARPA to make a final classification determination shall be marked as follows:

“CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION PENDING. Protect as though classified____________________________(insert the recommended classification level, e.g., Top Secret, Secret or Confidential)”

NOTE: Classified submissions must indicate the classification level of not only the submitted materials, but also the classification level of the anticipated award.

(b) Classified Submission Requirements and Procedures

Proposers submitting classified information must have, or be able to obtain prior to contract award, cognizant security agency approved facilities, information systems, and appropriately cleared/eligible personnel to perform at the classification level proposed. All proposer personnel performing Information Assurance (IA)/Cybersecurity related duties on classified Information Systems shall meet the requirements set forth in DoD Manual 8570.01-M (Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program). Additional information on the subjects discussed in this section may be found at http://www.dss.mil.

Proposers choosing to submit classified information from other collateral classified sources (i.e., sources other than DARPA) must ensure (1) they have permission from an authorized individual at the cognizant Government agency (e.g., Contracting Officer, Program Manager); (2) the proposal is marked in accordance with the source Security Classification Guide (SCG) from which the material is derived; and (3) the source SCG is submitted along with the proposal.

When a proposal includes a classified portion, and when able according to security guidelines, we ask that proposers send an e-mail to HR001119S0008@darpa.mil as notification that there is a classified portion to the proposal. When submitting a hard copy of the classified portion according to the instructions outlined below, proposers should submit three (3) hard copies of the classified portion of their proposal and two (2) CD-ROMs containing the classified portion of the proposal as a single searchable Adobe PDF file.

Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret Information

Use transmission, classification, handling, and marking guidance provided by previously issued SCGs, the DoD Information Security Manual (DoDM 5200.01, Volumes 1 - 4), and the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, including the Supplement Revision 1 (DoD 5220.22-M and DoD 5200.22-M Sup. 1), when submitting Confidential, Secret, and/or Top Secret classified information.

Confidential and Secret Confidential and Secret classified information may be submitted via ONE of the two following methods to the mailing address listed in the contact information in Part I of this BAA:

Hand-carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA Classified Document Registry (CDR). Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA CDR at 703-526-4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery.

OR

Mailed via U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Registered Mail or USPS Express Mail. All classified information will be enclosed in opaque inner and outer covers and double-wrapped. The inner envelope shall be sealed and plainly marked with the assigned classification and addresses of both sender and addressee. Senders should mail to the mailing address listed in the contact information herein.

The inner envelope shall be addressed to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, ATTN: DARPA/TTO, Alexander Walan, with a reference to the BAA number.

http://www.dss.mil/

The outer envelope shall be sealed with no identification as to the classification of its contents and addressed to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Security & Intelligence Directorate, Attn: CDR.

Top Secret Information Top Secret information must be hand-carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR. Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA CDR at 703-526-4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery.

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) SCI must be marked, managed and transmitted in accordance with DoDM 5105.21

Volumes 1 - 3. Questions regarding the transmission of SCI may be sent to the DARPA Technical Office Program Security Officer (PSO) via the BAA mailbox or by contacting the DARPA Special Security Officer (SSO) at 703-812-1970.

Successful proposers may be sponsored by DARPA for access to SCI. Sponsorship must be aligned to an existing DD Form 254 where SCI has been authorized. Questions regarding SCI sponsorship should be directed to the DARPA Personnel Security Office at 703-526-4543.

Special Access Program (SAP) Information SAP information must be marked in accordance with DoDM 5205.07 Volume 4 and transmitted by specifically approved methods which will be provided by the Technical Office PSO or their staff.

Proposers choosing to submit SAP information from an agency other than DARPA are required to provide the DARPA Technical Office PSO written permission from the source material’s cognizant Special Access Program Control Officer (SAPCO) or designated representative. For clarification regarding this process, contact the DARPA Technical Office PSO via the BAA mailbox or the DARPA SAPCO at 703-526-4102.

Additional SAP security requirements regarding facility accreditations, information security, personnel security, physical security,…