HR001119S0072.pdf

HR001119S0072

Broad Agency Announcement

Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors

(CRANE)

Tactical Technology Office

August 12, 2019

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

I. Funding Opportunity Description

C. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations D. Technical Approach E. Government Management Approach and Operations

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 – Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors

(CRANE)

Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001119S0072 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Proposers Day: August 26, 2019 o Posting Date: August 12, 2019 o Questions Due Date: September 18, 2019, 11:59pm (Midnight), EDT o Proposal Due Date and Time: November 8, 2019, 2:00pm EDT

Concise description of the funding opportunity – CRANE will design, build, and flight test an X-Plane that incorporates Active Flow Control (AFC) as a primary design consideration. This BAA seeks full proposals for Phase 0 and a fully priced option for Phase 1. Phase 0 focuses on the aircraft design process and trade space development via the exploration of multiple configurations by each performer and concluding with a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR). Phase 1 continues the maturation of up to two concepts with the expectation of component level testing and demonstrations to inform a System Requirement Review (SRR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), and through a limited competition, down to a single performer/single concept for Phase 2/3 funding.

Only proposals addressing CRANE objectives will be eligible for funding under this BAA and only Phase 0 and Phase 1 performers will be eligible to participate in Phases 2 and 3. DARPA seeks proposals that present a credible path to demonstration of program objectives (see Figure 1 for a notional schedule). The Government will request Phase 2/3 proposals during Phase 1 execution.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The total budget for Phase 0 is $21M.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

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:

HR001119S0072@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001119S0072

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: active flow control for aircraft. 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.

CRANE seeks to revolutionize next generation aircraft designs by incorporating AFC as a primary design consideration. This BAA encompasses a two-phase effort:

Phase 0: Conceptual Design Phase 1: Preliminary Design and Risk Reduction

A future solicitation may be issued in a limited competition among Phase 1 performers to encompass the remaining two phases:

Phase 2: Detailed Design Phase 3: Fabrication, Assembly, and Flight Test

CRANE looks to inject a disruptive technology into the aircraft design process, shifting aircraft design methodology moving forward. This effort will explore maturation of flow control technologies and design tools to a level that allows them to be incorporated early in the design process with a confidence level that optimizes the full utilization of their benefits. The ability to configure and optimize an aircraft with the full benefits of AFC allows for more efficient and effective next generation aircraft across both military and commercial applications. Although intended as an X-Plane, proposers are encouraged to focus on the best means to develop and flight demonstrate the proposed flow control technologies by taking cost, schedule, and technical risk into consideration, which may include clean sheet design or modification of an existing aircraft. DARPA expects substantial use of off-the-shelf components, especially for items unrelated to the AFC subsystems, to focus program resources on AFC development and testing.

AFC is a broad term that encompasses a range of technology approaches. Broadly defined for this BAA, flow control is a control mechanism that alters the aerodynamic flow field through mechanical actuators, or by means of ejection or suction of fluid via an orifice on an aerodynamic surface or interface (e.g. wing, fuselage, inlet, nozzle). For the purposes of this BAA, the term excludes techniques that use large external moving surfaces (ailerons, rudders, etc.), mechanical vectoring of engine jet exhaust, or other traditional moving aerodynamic control devices.

CRANE will integrate flow control technologies and a control loop that will allow for demonstration of an aircraft at a scale applicable to tactical aircraft. CRANE will demonstrate in flight that AFC actuator technologies are capable of safely maintaining flight while providing quantifiable operational capabilities and advantages. DARPA is not interested in developing patch fixes to design flaws or incrementally developing component technologies without a path to flight demonstration. The CRANE program seeks to develop an innovative aircraft enabled by AFC or that provides substantial operational benefits from the use of AFC.

Airworthiness certification of the full-scale aircraft will occur in Phase 2; however, design and test planning considerations may be applicable to this BAA. Performers are expected to complete all safety/airworthiness reviews and obtain airworthiness certification prior to first flight. A systematic airworthiness approach applicable to experimental aircraft will be followed in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5030.61 (or latest applicable revision). This will require participation of the performer, the DARPA Government team, and a test range. The airworthiness process is envisioned to be based on a military flight release tailored for an experimental aircraft based on MIL-HDBK-516C. The airworthiness approach may benefit from performer experience and internal processes, as applicable, so any such approaches should also be described. It is anticipated that flight-testing will be conducted in restricted airspace and that a flight termination system may be required if unmanned.

B. Program Plan and Risk Management Approach

The program consists of a four-phase developmental cycle with each phase building upon the maturation of the previous phase. The program plan is depicted in Figure 1.

The two phases being solicited via this BAA are summarized as follows:

Phase 0 awardees are expected to enter Phase 0 with multiple candidate configurations and flow control approaches with the goal of a robust CoDR for one or more configurations. The focus of Phase 0 is on the design process and maturing the understanding of the trade space.

Performers will emphasize fact-finding, developing configuration agnostic design guidelines, performing geometric and technology trade studies, and process documentation. As configurations are evaluated, the Government and performer teams will work together to identify risk areas of the design(s) and identify and execute necessary risk reduction activities.

Phase 1 will be executed for up to two concepts to conduct Systems Requirements Review (SRR) subsystem tests at relevant scales to validate analytical predictions, control loop analyses, and modeling and simulation verification and validation; culminating with a PDR. It is expected that component level testing and demonstrations will be sufficient to evaluate the configuration’s readiness and feasibility to complete the flight test program within program cost and schedule constraints.

The remaining two phases that may be solicited via a limited competition among Phase 1 performers are summarized as follows:

Phase 2 will complete integrated subsystem component testing and detailed design and conclude with a system level Critical Design Review (CDR). During this Phase, performers are expected to focus on completing aircraft critical design with testing and risk reduction events targeted at the highest risk elements of the configuration. Additionally, the Government and performer teams will finalize their airworthiness approach that identifies substantiating artifacts required to obtain an airworthiness release.

Phase 3 will include fabrication, assembly, ground test, Test Readiness Review (TRR), and flight demonstration of the aircraft’s capabilities. The primary focus will be on fabrication and ground testing necessary to prepare for and complete the flight test campaign. Ground testing and airworthiness requirements will be completed prior to each test event as appropriate.

The flight test campaign should be incremental in nature and retain sufficient airframe life for potential transition and additional testing by another Government agency.

Figure 1. Program Plan

Program execution should include regular collaborative meetings and teleconferences to inform the Government of program, design, and development status. At substantial decision points, in-person Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) 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). Proposers should aggressively identify technical and programmatic risks and resource parallel risk reduction paths over the life of the program.

The minimum anticipated meeting rhythm is outlined below and may include multiple meetings on the same day.

Bi-weekly program management tag-ups (teleconference).

Monthly TIMs on specific areas of interest or substantial decisions (teleconference or in-person).

Quarterly vector checks to align program performance with Government team expectations (in-person).

Throughout the design process, analysis of alternatives should be used to select configurations and hardware components. Software and subsystems should be tested to verify design margins appropriate for an X-Plane. Subsystem designs and testing should accommodate suitable analysis variability in areas where no validated models exist. Phase 0 and Phase 1 focus on risk reduction and multi-disciplinary analysis and optimization (MDAO) that will allow for an integrated design best suited for the flow control approach. Early hardware testing is vital for later success of the assembled demonstrator and is expected by the Government throughout the program.

C. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

The Performer will execute a CoDR, SRR, and PDR with content and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard 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, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. CRANE system design review guidance for those aspects of the program are outlined below, followed by specific CoDR, SRR, and PDR guidance. The tailored CoDR SRR, and PDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored SRR and PDR 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.

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

Design Definition - The design of the 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 – Programmatic and technical risks are identified and assessed (e.g., consequence and likelihood). Mitigation plans are in place along with associated completion criteria. Programmatic and 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 and results have been documented.

The representative test article design is documented.

CoDR

The objective of this review is to determine the feasibility of the performer’s system idea(s), and that they are consistent with the CRANE program goals. The performer will present the system conceptual baseline(s), review the results of any trade studies completed, and review the system-level specification(s). The review will form the basis for deriving the preliminary design, allow DARPA to assess the performer’s program approach and progress, and allow DARPA an opportunity to provide guidance. Following CoDR, the performer is expected to proceed to preliminary design.

Minimum information to be provided:

Technology conceptual design is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis.

A pathway to SRR is identified.

System baseline technologies for flow control are identified.

System baseline approach to flight control loop is identified.

Model and Simulation methods to verify the 3D flow field are identified and required enhancements or modifications required are identified.

Initial MDAO results are presented.

Design support analysis and data from all design disciplines, to support the selected final design.

Projected performance capabilities against demonstration profile.

Release the final conceptual design drawing package (3-view, inboard profiles).

Initial program schedule to include planned testing and analysis timelines and envisioned

Phase 1, 2, and 3 demonstration methodology.

SRR

The objective of SRR is to ensure system design and development requirements are completed and documented. The performer will present the current system design status, review trade study results, and review system requirements definition. The review allows DARPA to assess the performer’s program approach and progress, and provide guidance.

Minimum information to be provided:

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

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

Design Status – Current design status provides a feasible path to a PDR.

Trade Studies – The results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach are presented to include cost benefit analysis and military utility.

Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to a Bill of

Materials (BOM) cost that meets cost metrics.

Updated program schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to flight test program within established schedule metrics.

Preliminary airworthiness approach completed in consultation with the Government.

PDR

The objective of PDR is to determine the design maturity of the selected system concept to ensure consistency with CRANE program goals. The performer will present the system preliminary design baseline with closure around documented requirements, updated program risks, and updated program cost/schedule through completion of the flight test program. The review will allow DARPA to assess the feasibility of the design to complete a meaningful flight test program within program cost and schedule constraints and provide guidance.

Minimum information to be provided:

Requirements Development – Interface and requirements are complete. Initial verification statements are complete 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, PDR requirements are traceable to system-level requirements, and the design closes around documented requirements and adequately demonstrates that performance achieves minimum and maximum threshold ranges, and meets size, weight, power and cost (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. Draft Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) for Phases 2 and 3.

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

Updated program schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to flight test program within established schedule metrics.

Updated airworthiness approach completed in consultation with the Government.

D. Technical Approach

The intent of CRANE is to produce a design that is based on active flow control.

Proposals should address the process and methodology they will apply to execute a full program that will utilize Phase 0 investigation, maturation and trade analysis to inform conceptual design(s). Through this process of development to a full system demonstrator, they should address the technical challenges associated with full-scale design and integration, closing the stability and control loop, and system design tools. It is anticipated that MDOA from inception will allow for an integrated design best suited for the chosen actuation approach.

Program goals are to flight test a tactically relevant scale aircraft that incorporates AFC to achieve quantifiable performance and/or operational benefits over traditional approaches. Some specific applications include elimination of moving control surfaces for stability and control (S&C), takeoff and landing performance, high lift flight, thick airfoil efficiency, and enhanced high altitude performance. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive and proposers are encouraged to provide additional applications/benefits of their proposed AFC-centered designs and approach(es).

E. Government Management Approach and Operations

The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government Program Office is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which will be augmented by Government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from multiple organizations to assist with program execution. The performers will interface with the Government team at a minimum via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level and quarterly in-person program management reviews. The proposers are asked to provide a management approach to allow for regular collaboration with the Government team to ensure a successful program.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

This BAA solicits proposals for only Phase 0 (Base Period) and Phase 1 (Option Period). 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. Total Phase 0 funding is on the order of $21M and expected to be completed in 12 months. Phase 1 is expected to nominally take 9 months.

This BAA requests a single, full proposal that includes both Phase 0 and Phase 1. The Government intends to use this BAA to fund only Phases 0 and 1. DARPA plans to award multiple Phase 0 efforts and to exercise Phase 1 options prior to the end of the Phase 0 period of performance based on Phase 0 execution and funding availability. DARPA may conduct a limited competition for Phases 2 and 3 during Phase 1, at which point Phase 1 performers will be invited to submit proposals. Only one performer is expected to be selected to proceed into Phases 2 and 3.

For Phase 1, proposals should focus on the process to bring a single configuration through SRR, and PDR with the envisioned testing and demonstration framework to appropriately mature the configuration. Proposals are expected to identify knowledge gaps and the associated analysis and test plans to fill those gaps early in the program. It is desired that offers propose a a single Phase 1 option; if required multiple Phase 1 options may be proposed depending on the proposed concept and envisioned demonstration plans.

DARPA requests a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for Phase 2 and Phase 3, as well as the underlying assumptions on which the cost estimate was based. While proposers will need to ensure that the Phase 0 and Phase 1 portions of their technical proposals sufficiently demonstrate foresight for successful transition to Phases 2 and 3, the Phase 2 and Phase 3 ROMs will be used for planning purposes only and will not be evaluated.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.4, “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposals from award consideration, should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

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 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 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.

1. United States Enterprises to Include:

a) Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses

b) Accredited degree granting colleges and universities1

c) Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations

2. 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.

1 Note that the Government expects program goals as described in this BAA cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

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.

3. Non-U.S. Organizations and/or Individuals

Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the BAA. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposer’s judgment and to prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through

FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and

Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.

Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.

If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the proposal must include:

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

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

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

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

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

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

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 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 35 pages (title page, table of contents, and SOW are not counted against the 35 page limit.

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.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001119S0072);

(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);

http://www.darpa.mil/

(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: Summary of Proposal

A. Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation. (In the proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III of the Technical and Management Proposal.)

B. Innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

C. Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition.

a. Technical deliverables, such as reports, technical design reviews, hardware deliveries, etc.

b. Technology Transition deliverables, such as business case and transition story.

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. 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.2.h of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

D. General discussion of other research in this area.

E. A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable:

(1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year. 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.

Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

A. Statement of Work (SOW) – In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The 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;

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

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; and

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 being solicited via this BAA (i.e., Phase 0 and Phase 1) is separately defined.

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

B. Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path to supplement information included in the summary of the proposal. 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.”

C. Detailed technical approach enhancing and completing the Summary of Proposal.

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

E. Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas.

F. 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.

G. Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort.

H. Detail support enhancing that of Summary of Proposal, including formal teaming agreements which are required to execute this program.

I. 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.

b) Volume II, Cost Proposal

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001119S0072);

(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), 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.

B. Cost Breakdown Information and Format

Detailed cost breakdown to include:

Basis for realism of total cost with comparison to efforts of similar size, scope and complexity to include a discussion of total cost estimation techniques used.

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.

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.)

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.

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., other transaction.)

a. Subawardee Proposals

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

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 when the proposal is submitted. Subawardee proposals submitted to the Government by the proposed awardee should be submitted in a sealed envelope that the proposed awardee will not be allowed to view. The subawardee must provide the same number of copies to the PCO/GO/AO as is required of the awardee. See Section IV.B.3 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.

Rough Order of Magnitude(ROM) Cost Estimate

Proposers shall include a ROM cost estimate for Phases 2 and 3 as well as a list of assumptions used to inform the basis for the cost estimate. This submission will be used for planning purposes only and will not be evaluated.

2. Additional Proposal Information

a) Proprietary Markings

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. 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

(1) Program Security Information

Proposers should include with their proposal any proposed solution(s) to program security requirements unique to this program.