HR001119S0054.pdf

HR001119S0054

Broad Agency Announcement

Disruptive Capabilities for Future Warfare

Tactical Technology Office

June 12, 2019

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Overview B. TTO Focus Areas

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. Application Assistance B. Content and Form of Submission C. Submission Instructions D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

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

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 – Disruptive Capabilities for Future Warfare Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001119S0054 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – 12.910 Research and

Technology Development Dates o Posting Date: 12 June 2019 o Proposal Due Date and Time: 4 PM Eastern Time on 11 June 2020

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The Tactical Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is soliciting executive summaries, proposal abstracts and proposals for applied research, advanced technology development, and platform demonstrations that aim to enable disruptive capabilities for future warfare.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement (FAR-based) contract, grant, cooperative agreement or other transaction.

Agency contact: The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached via:

HR001119S0054@darpa.mil o DARPA/Tactical Technology Office ATTN:

HR001119S0054

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 o PHONE: (703) 248-1512

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. This 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 following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

A. Program Overview

The Tactical Technology Office (TTO) of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting executive summaries, proposal abstracts, and proposals for applied research, advanced technology development, platform demonstrations, or systems studies that aim to enable new warfighting constructs.

The U.S. military must expand from their historic emphasis on dominance to one of disruptive performance – enabling enhanced capability where needed, applied by a more agile and resilient force. DARPA/TTO intends to develop new systems and supporting technologies that will fuel new force structures and in turn, challenge DoD warfighting agencies, the defense industrial base, and the resulting military systems to innovate conflict and engagement. TTO seeks new ideas to drive this enterprise disruption across the seams of traditional warfighting domains.

DARPA is built on a foundation of pivotal investments in high-risk technologies for national security; the Office-wide BAA represents a critical portal for innovation and initial investment towards developing the DARPA portfolio. TTO views the Office-wide BAA as an opportunity to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a specific need may be met. Submissions should describe how an investment would provide the unique insight into the problem TTO is trying to solve, and quantifiably substantiate those assertions. These insights may include proof-of-concept prototypes, system analyses, or any other work product that identifies the path to a new system concept. TTO encourages approaches that prove (or disprove) this unique insight as fast as possible – TTO is interested in quickly identifying promising technologies and moving them to the next phase of development.

TTO will seek innovative ways to develop, demonstrate, and employ breakthrough technologies to generate surprise and leap-ahead military capability while adhering to the DARPA Imperatives: defend the homeland against existential threats, deter and prevail against high end adversary, and effectively prosecute stabilization efforts. TTO currently has a strong portfolio supporting the deter and prevail against high end adversary imperative and will continue system demonstrations in this area. Specific emphasis will be placed to address the effectively prosecute stabilization efforts imperative continuing work in the ground domain while demonstrating novel approaches in the air, space, and maritime domains. For the defend the homeland against existential threats imperative, TTO will investigate novel ways to counter known and emerging threats. As such, TTO is explicitly not interested in approaches or technologies that offer incremental or evolutionary advancements beyond state-of-the-art. To see what DARPA/TTO is already investing in, please visit us online at https://www.darpa.mil/.

TTO recommends submitting an executive summary prior to a proposal abstract or full proposal submission to have your concept reviewed by TTO personnel to gauge interest.

Submission instructions can be found in Section IV – concepts may not be submitted by fax or e-mail. Evaluation criteria for this solicitation can be found in Section V.A.

B. TTO Focus Areas To drive enterprise disruption, TTO is interested in challenging the architecture of combat within, beyond, and across the seams of the traditional warfighting domains.

Additionally, respondents should consider the following crosscutting themes as opportunities for disrupting warfare:

Pivoting from high-value assets;

Changing the cost curve: enabling warfighting capability at a lower cost, including leveraging commercial solutions and approaches;

Exploiting and addressing the gap and overlap between traditional warfighting domains and technologies; and Enabling adaptation to dynamic threats, environments, and battle situations through responsive autonomy and man-machine learning.

1. Air Systems

TTO seeks undeterrable air presence in any environment and theater, from permissive to highly contested, at a time of our choosing. Our acquisition system is finding it difficult to respond on relevant timescales to adversary progress, which has made the search for next-generation capabilities at once more urgent and more futile. More fundamentally, platform stealth may be approaching physical limits. Are there acceptable alternatives to air dominance?

Is it possible to achieve Joint Force objectives without clearing the skies of enemy fighters and bombers, and eliminating all surface-based threats? Can this be achieved without placing a high-value, sophisticated platform and crew at risk – reducing leverage potential adversaries currently hold over the U.S.? How can TTO go beyond evolutionary advances in stealth technology and disrupt traditional doctrines of air dominance/air supremacy?

Technical thrusts could include, but are not limited to:

Capabilities that promote consistently successful mission objectives in a contested air environment – or undeterrable air presence.

Investments in infrastructure and techniques that enable faster development and adaptation of air capabilities to support undeterrable air presence.

Explore air responses to a wide-range of strategic challenges that provide effects proportional to the risk.

https://www.darpa.mil/

Diverse weapons technologies that address threats with a limited window of vulnerability and identify, locate, target, and engage appropriately.

Lethality through a combination of overwhelming performance (e.g. hypersonics) and overwhelming numbers (e.g. swarming low-cost weapons).

Reduce reliance on evolutionary advances in traditional stealth technology applied to increasingly complex monolithic platforms.

Rapidly develop prototypes and experiment with new concepts for undeterrable air presence.

Greater levels of autonomy and attritability to minimize cost and risk to human warfighters, while increasing overall effectiveness and lethality.

Encourage traditional TTO performers to search for technical advancements in academia and start-up communities that support new concepts in undeterrable air presence.

2. Ground Systems

TTO seeks to break the symmetry of ground combat through the application of numerous autonomous agents, as bulwarks for our service men and women exposed to high casualty risks across the spectrum of conflict. Threats in this domain are often met with marginal technical evolution, meant to re-establish equilibrium. TTO is interested in generating a more permanent asymmetry to better safeguard personnel while increasing lethality, reach, and situational awareness in combat operations. How can TTO provide U.S. land forces control in a complex environment where the adversary has “home field advantage”? How can TTO minimize warfighter exposure to threats, while enhancing the effects they deliver?

Technical thrusts could include, but are not limited to:

Capabilities and architectures that reduce reliance on consolidated forward-operating bases and subsequent lines of communication.

Innovation in mobility and lethality for small units, or even individual warfighters, to enable local dominance.

Expanding the combined arms maneuver trade space to include the vertical dimension, to exploit both natural and man-made subterranean environments.

Developing a new class of kinetic and non-kinetic engagement capability for the ground forces.

Leveraging advances in AI enabled autonomy for effective, integrated, manned-unmanned ground force operations.

3. Maritime Systems

TTO seeks stand-in power projection and application from the sea that no longer relies on the preeminence of small numbers of vulnerable, high-value assets. Air-launched cruise missiles, advanced ballistic missiles, and hypersonic weapons represent serious threats to the carrier strike group; is there an alternative that could shift onerous or unacceptable costs onto our adversaries? How can we reduce reliance on large, expensive, and increasingly vulnerable carrier strike group platforms? Are there ways to deliver equivalent force projection using less costly and vulnerable assets? Can the relative sanctuary of the undersea be leveraged to project power in all domains?

Technical thrusts could include, but are not limited to:

Capabilities and system-of-system architectures that reduce U.S. warfighting reliance on monolithic, high-value surface, and sub-surface assets.

The proliferation and disaggregation of maritime assets using small, inexpensive, massively-networked vessels derived from commercial designs

Leveraging commercial private sector development in artificial intelligence and autonomy.

Explore opportunities for proportional responses to actions short of armed conflict that retain free access to trade routes.

Foster the development of a “new maritime” performer community composed of non-traditional providers of maritime capabilities and platforms to lower cost of development and launch of next-generation naval systems.

Creating cross-domain capabilities that leverage the undersea domain to project power into all other domains.

Incentivize traditional TTO performers to search for technical advancements in academia and start-up communities that support new maritime concepts.

4. Space Systems

TTO seeks a proliferated architecture of commodity spacecraft, sensors, and systems that leverage commercial technology and provide ubiquitous presence, low latency, and rapid tech refresh at unprecedented low cost. Our current ability to put capabilities on-orbit to respond to emerging threats has limited responsiveness – a weakness recognized by potential adversaries. How can we eliminate dependence on these monolithic systems, while enhancing effectiveness and resiliency and avoiding run-away cost? How can we introduce agility to the space domain, both in responsiveness during warfighting and adaptability of architecture and capabilities?

Technical thrusts could include, but are not limited to:

Capabilities and system-of-system architectures that complicate an adversary’s counter-space plans by reducing warfighting reliance on monolithic, vulnerable, high-value space assets and instruments.

Proliferating and disaggregating space assets at LEO, to reduce reliance on GEO assets – creating smaller, simpler satellites derived from commercial designs, and that leverage the emerging commercial private sector development of network and user segments.

Leverage the space domain to find traction for those risks in defending the homeland peculiar to that domain.

Incentivize the development and use of smaller, simpler launch vehicles for small satellites as well as launcher capabilities that can launch on shorter timelines and from non-traditional locations.

Techniques and algorithms to enable space operations with increased autonomy and reduced human resources.

Foster a performer community composed of re-energized traditional DoD space performers and emerging commercial “new space” entrants.

Challenge the community to exploit advances in material science, manufacturing, and computational imaging to reduce the size and weight required.

Seek innovative ways to counter emerging threats assuming a contested space environment.

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. Initial awards are anticipated to be for less than $1 million and less than 18 months duration, although options that follow the base effort may also be proposed.

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.

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see Section V, “Application Review Information,”) and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.4, “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove 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, grant, cooperative agreement, 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. Any requests for or assumptions regarding Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Government Furnished Information (GFI) should be clearly stated in the proposal.

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 accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this BAA if: (1) that participant in the OT, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT, successfully completed the entire prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

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 cannot identify whether the work under this BAA may be considered fundamental research and may award both fundamental and non-fundamental research.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language 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 to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort 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 may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research. In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered 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. Submissions including profane or racially charged language will not be reviewed.

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, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement 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 and compete with industry. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

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

If a submission contains Classified National Security Information or the suspicion of such, as defined by Executive Order 13526, 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:

http://www.dss.mil/

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

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

Government Procedures In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the BAA evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.

If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype, see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Application Assistance

All administrative correspondence and questions on this solicitation, including requests for information on how to submit an executive summary, proposal abstract, or full proposal to this BAA, should be directed to mailto:HR001119S0054@darpa.mil.

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed above. No additional information is available, except as provided at FBO.gov or Grants.gov, nor will a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) or additional solicitation regarding this announcement be issued. Requests for the same will be disregarded.

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

http://www.darpa.mil/

Technical support for DARPA's BAA Website may be reached at BAAT_Support@darpa.mil. It is recommended that you Courtesy Copy (CC) the administrative contact at HR001119S0054@darpa.mil on this correspondence, for situational awareness.

B. Content and Form of Submission

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an executive summary and, if encouraged, a proposal abstract in advance of a full proposal. This procedure is intended to minimize unnecessary effort and cost in proposal preparation and review.

All submissions must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. A page is defined as being no larger than an electronically formatted page of 8.5” by 11.0” with type not smaller than 12 point. 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.

For a proposal that includes both classified and unclassified information, the proposal may be separated into an unclassified portion and a classified portion. The proposal should use the unclassified portion to the maximum extent reasonable. Submissions should be made according to the instructions outlined in Section IV.C.4.

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

1. Executive Summary (ES) Format Executive summaries are encouraged in advance of submitting proposal abstracts and full proposals in order to provide potential proposers with a rapid response to minimize unnecessary effort. Proposers should specifically and clearly address the innovation of their proposed system or subsystem component development, the scientific or technical basis for innovative claims, and the impact of the proposed development on military mission capabilities, efficiency, or effectiveness. DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104), and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. The executive summary should be clearly marked “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,” and the total length shall not exceed two [2] pages. All executive summary submissions must be written in narrative form. No formal transmittal letter is required, but submissions must include the organization name, submission title, and technical POC information (e-mail and mailing address).

2. Proposal Abstract (PA) Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit a proposal abstract, or white paper, in advance of a proposal. Abstracts should follow the same general format as described for proposals (see IV.B.3) but include ONLY sections I and II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal. The abstract must include a statement of the anticipated Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost and the anticipated duration of the proposed effort. It is recommended that proposers provide sufficient information to assess the technical performance claims – DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104), and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed six [6] pages. The maximum page count excludes the cover page in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, section I, and official transmittal letter, but does include any figures, tables, or the requested quad chart. An official transmittal letter is not required.

3. Full Proposal (FP) Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. Non-conforming proposals may be rejected without review. 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 into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of three parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 30 pages (40 pages if the proposal dollar value is > $1 million). Bracketed numbers by each section denote page limits. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts.

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.

Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, described below, may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished), which document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers may be included with the submission.

The bibliography and attached papers are not included in the page limits. The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include {no page limit}:

(1) BAA number (HR001119S0054);

(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, including total base cost, estimates of base cost in each year of the effort, estimates of itemized options in each year of the effort, and the amount of cost share (if any);

(11) Award instrument requested: cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), cost-contract – no fee, cost sharing contract – no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction;

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

(13) Affirmation of Human Subject Research. If none, state “none”;

(14) Affirmation of Animal Research. If none, state “none”;

(15) Summary of the costs of the proposed research, including total base cost, estimates of base cost in each year of the effort, estimates of itemized options in each year of the effort, and cost sharing if relevant;

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

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

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

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

(18) DUNS number;

(19) TIN number;

(20) Cage code (lead organization);

(21) Proposal validity period (minimum 180 days);

(22) Affirmation of existing SETA support contacts (see Part III, Section B). If none, state “none”;

(23) Statement of Unique Capability Provided by Government or Government- Funded

Team Member {no page limit};

(24) Per Section III.A – Eligible Applicants, proposals that include Government or

Government-funded entities (i.e., FFRDC’s, National laboratories, etc.) as prime, subcontractor or team member, shall provide a statement that clearly demonstrates the work being provided by the Government or Government- funded entity team member is not otherwise available from the private sector. If none of the team members belongs to a Government or Government-funded entity, then the proposer should state “Not Applicable.”

(25) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter {1}

(c) Table of Contents {no page limit}

Section II: Summary of Proposal {4} Note: The Summary of Proposal should not have any unique information not contained in the Detailed Proposal Information.

(a) Innovation: Succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed research relative to the existing body of research and industry work. Provide a basic description of the scientific or technical basis for the innovative claims.

(b) Results: Provide a short description of the deliverables associated with the proposed research – discuss the results, products, transferable technology, and transition path.

i. 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. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.4.i of this BAA.

There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

ii. 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. The Government will assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property restrictions in their proposals.

(c) Technical Rationale: Provide a short description of the impact of the proposed development on military mission capabilities, efficiency, or effectiveness.

i. Should include general discussion of other research in this area.

ii. The purpose of this section is to explain why the specific technical approach you chose is superior to other technical approaches. This section is not intended to expand on the military utility of your concept.

(d) Technical Approach: Provide a short description of the technical approach and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production.

(e) Experience: Describe the unique capabilities of project and corporate team members.

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

(f) Cost: Cost, schedule and measurable milestones for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the prime and major subcontractors, total cost and company cost share, if applicable. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.)

(g) Quad Chart: Include, in PowerPoint format, a quad chart that reflects the content and claims in the proposal. The quadrants should be as follows: (1) proposal picture in the upper left-hand quadrant; (2) proposal description in the upper right-hand quadrant; (3) proposal military impact in the lower left-hand quadrant; and (4) proposal budget and schedule. For full proposals, the quad chart will serve as the fourth page.

Section III: Detailed Proposal Information {26 or 36 if proposal is more than one million dollars}

(a) Statement of Work (SOW) – In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

ii. A detailed description of the approach to be taken to accomplish each defined task/activity in support of the innovative claims and deliverable production;

iii. Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution (prime, sub, team member, by name, etc.);

iv. A top-level schedule for all major tasks and the completion criteria for each task/activity (a product, event or milestone that defines its completion). Please include where the effort could be partitioned into initial and future phases – future phases should be identified as options.

v. Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, hardware, software, technology, products, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed tasks/activities; and

vi. 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.

Note: It is recommended that the SOW should be developed so that each Phase of the program is separately defined. The SOW is not included as part of the Volume I page limit.

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

(b) Technical Rationale:

i. Provide the technical rationale for the objective requirement, including technology advancements and value-added to DoD capabilities.

ii. Provide technical rationale, scientific basis, and any supporting analysis for the technical approach for each major task/activity.

iii. Provide a comparison of the technical objectives and technical approach with other ongoing research and existing state-of-the-art, indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

(c) Risk and Risk Reduction:

i. Provide an initial list of critical technology risk areas.

ii. Describe the formal process for identifying and tracking the risk elements that translate into critical and unique technologies, processes and system attributes associated with technology objective.

iii. For each proposed risk reduction task:

1. Provide a detailed discussion of the technical objectives of each of the proposed risk reduction tasks as well as quantifiable success metrics.

2. Describe the technical approach for each risk reduction task.

3. Describe the value of performing the risk reduction activities during the initial phase, as opposed to deferring them until future phases.

iv. Describe the process for identifying and evaluating applicable technologies available from other Government and industry R&D programs.

v. Address mitigation of life-cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable.

(d) Results:

i. Describe the results, products, transferable technology and expected technology transfer/transition paths.

ii. Provide a description of all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.4.i –

Intellectual Property. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

(e) Organization:

i. Describe the programmatic relationship of corporate team members.

ii. Describe the responsibilities of corporate and project team members.

iii. Describe the teaming strategy among the team members.

iv. Identify the key personnel by name and include descriptions of their roles. 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.

v. Describe the proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas.

vi. Submit a clearly defined organization chart for the project team which includes, as applicable:

• The programmatic relationship of team members;

• The unique capabilities of team members;

• The task of responsibilities of team members;

• The teaming strategy among the team members; and

• The key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year.

(f) Facilities: Provide a description of any unique facilities necessary for execution of the proposed effort that would be used for the proposed effort.

(g) Project Management:

i. Management Plan:

1. Describe program management process that will be utilized to achieve the technical objective.

2. Include a description of how the team will function and share technical and financial information among the team members and with the Government.

3. Provide short resumes for the key personnel in key disciplines/risk areas.

ii. Schedule: Provide a detailed integrated schedule of all initial phase activities, including risk reduction tasks. Proposals below $1 million should provide an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) at a minimum at WBS Level 2. Proposals that exceed $1 million (total proposed value, regardless of potential cost share) should provide an IMS at WBS Level 3.

1. Measurable critical milestones should occur every two (2) to three (3) months after the start of the effort. Additional interim non-critical management milestones are also highly encouraged at regular intervals. Milestones must not include proprietary information.

2. Top-level schedules are required for optional phases and should be based on the proposer’s initial risk reduction strategy.

3. Include key events and demonstrations as appropriate for the technology concept.

An electronic copy of the IMS in MS Project shall be included with proposal submissions.

4. All tasks in the IMS shall be linked and the ability to display the critical path shall be implemented.

b) Volume II, Cost Proposal

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001119S0054);

(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), grant, cooperative agreement, 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.

Section II: Detailed Cost Proposal Note: Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without review.

(a) Supporting Cost and Pricing Data:

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

ii. The awardee is responsible for compiling and providing all subawardee proposals for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).

iii. Subawardee proposals should include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements.

iv. All proprietary subawardee proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the awardee’s proposal and 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 by e-mail (HR001119S0054@darpa.mil) when the proposal is submitted.

v. 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.

vi. For IT and equipment purchases, include a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding.

vii. Each copy must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title (short title recommended).

(b) Cost Breakdown Information and Format: Detailed cost breakdown to include the following.

i. Provide the total cost and costs broken down by initial phase and options.

ii. Provide costs broken down by task for the initial phase, including at a minimum:

1. Major tasks by fiscal year

2. A summary of projected funding requirements by month

3. Direct labor, including labor categories and man-hours, and labor rates;

4. Cost by the prime and major subcontractors;

5. Cost by major risk/activity;

6. Materials;

7. Other Direct Costs (ODCs) (e.g., travel, equipment, etc.);

8. Overhead/Indirect charges, and rates used to calculate overhead/indirect costs;

Provide the source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing.

iii. An itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases, including:

1. Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs (vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) and a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation.

2. 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.)

3. 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.

Tables included in the cost proposal in editable (e.g. MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact. NOTE: If PDF submissions differ from the Excel submission, the PDF will take precedence.

(c) Cost Note

Per FAR 15.403-4,…