HR001119S0076-Amendment-01.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Securing Information for Encrypted Verification and Evaluation

(SIEVE)

HR001119S0076

July 12, 2019

Amendment 1 Amended on July 15, 2019

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Information Innovation Office 675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 2

Table of Contents Part I: Overview Information……………………………………………………………………...………3

Part II: Full Text of Announcement………………………………………………………………………..4

I. Funding Opportunity Description

II. Award Information

A. Awards

B. Fundamental Research

C. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls

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

C. Submission Dates and Times

D. Funding Restrictions

E. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information

A. Evaluation Criteria

B. Review and Selection Process

VI. Award Administration Information

A. Selection Notices

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

C. Reporting

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

A. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

B. Proposers Day

C. Submission Checklist

D. Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA)

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 3

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Information Innovation Office (I2O)

Funding Opportunity Title: Securing Information for Encrypted Verification and Evaluation (SIEVE)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: HR001119S0076

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA):

12.910 Research and Technology Development

Dates o Posting Date: July 12, 2019 o Proposers Day: July 17, 2019 o Abstract Due Date: July 31, 2019, 12:00 noon (ET) o Proposal Due Date: September 20, 2019, 12:00 noon (ET) o BAA Closing Date: September 20, 2019, 12:00 noon (ET)

Anticipated Individual Awards: DARPA anticipates multiple awards in each of Technical Areas (TAs) 1, 2 and 3.

Types of Instruments that May be Awarded: Procurement contracts, cooperative agreements or Other Transactions (OT) may be awarded for each of Technical Areas (TAs) 1, 2 and 3. In addition, grants may be awarded for TA3.

Procurement contracts or Other Transactions (OT) may be awarded for each of Technical Areas (TAs) 1, 2 and 3. In addition, grants or, cooperative agreements may be awarded for TA3.

Agency Contacts o Technical POC: Dr Joshua Baron, Program Manager, DARPA/I2O o BAA Email: SIEVE@darpa.mil o BAA Mailing Address:

DARPA/I2O

ATTN: HR001119S0076

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 o I2O Solicitation Website: http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 4

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of zero-knowledge proofs for complex, DoD-relevant capabilities. 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.

This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is being issued, and any resultant selection will be made, using procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016.

Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4. Proposals received as a result of this BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process.

DARPA BAAs are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (https://www.fbo.gov/) and the Grants.gov website (https://www.grants.gov/).

The following information is for those wishing to respond to this BAA.

A. Introduction

The SIEVE program will use zero knowledge proofs to enable the verification of capabilities relevant to the Department of Defense (DoD) without revealing the sensitive details associated with those capabilities. SIEVE will accomplish this goal by dramatically increasing the expressivity of problem statements for which zero knowledge proofs can be constructed. SIEVE will also focus on increasing the efficiency of zero knowledge proof technology to enable large, complex proof statements (e.g., billions of gates or more, where the statement natively consists of probabilistic, indeterminate-branching conditions).

Prospective proposers are strongly encouraged to submit abstracts for DARPA to provide feedback on the extent to which their approaches and related assumptions are of interest for SIEVE. Proposers are also encouraged to read this BAA in its entirety; important information for all proposers may be found in all sections of this solicitation.

B. Program Description and Scope

A zero-knowledge (ZK) proof is an interactive protocol between a prover and a verifier. The prover creates a statement that they want the verifier to accept, using knowledge that will remain hidden from the verifier. Recent research has substantially increased the efficiency of ZK proofs, enabling real-world use, primarily by cryptocurrencies. The SIEVE program will advance the state of the art in ZK proofs to enable complex, DoD-relevant applications. While proposers may propose applications, exemplar applications include proving statements about software, computation more generally, and the interaction of technology within society. SIEVE is particularly motivated to provide ZK proofs for statements about capabilities associated with cybersecurity and cyberspace operations, which have historically been difficult for the United States Government to communicate about in a verifiable fashion without the release of sensitive information. SIEVE will demonstrate the feasibility of encoding complex, DoD-relevant https://www.fbo.gov/

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 5 statements into intermediate representations (IRs) that can then be used to create efficient ZK proofs for those statements.

Today, ZK proof techniques are in use in some cryptocurrency transactions. These transactions require extremely efficient, often succinct1 communication and verification time, and are generally non-interactive. The tradeoff for such small communication and verification complexity has generally been superlinear prover complexity (especially when the security parameter is considered in the asymptotic complexity). This tradeoff is unacceptable for highly complex proof statements, where any superlinear complexity can create an insurmountable efficiency bottleneck. Accordingly, SIEVE will focus on the creation of max-linear complexity ZK proofs with extremely high concrete efficiency, though efficiency increases in so-called succinct ZK proofs will also be in scope to the extent that they are appropriate for some DoD-relevant applications. Another cost of succinctness and non-interactivity is that they require setup assumptions and/or non-standard (e.g., non-falsifiable) cryptographic assumptions. By contrast, SIEVE will focus on realistic scenarios for the creation of ZK proofs of relevance to public demonstration of DoD capabilities; this setting may not look anything like a cryptocurrency transaction, and therefore may not require the kinds of assumptions necessary for non-interactivity and/or succinctness.

Additionally, in order to ensure the relevance of ZK proofs for the foreseeable future, including the case where a cryptographically-relevant quantum computer were to exist, SIEVE will focus on substantially decreasing the asymptotic complexity of post-quantum ZK proof techniques, specifically ZK proofs that 1) rely on post-quantum hardness assumptions for their security and/or 2) reason about statements of relevance to post-quantum cryptography.

C. Technical Areas

The SIEVE program has been organized into three (3) phases; all phases will be awarded at once if the proposal is selected (there will not be separate options). Phase 1 will be 18 months, followed by an 18-month Phase 2, and then concluded with Phase 3 at 12 months.

Phase 1 will emphasize initial development to demonstrate feasibility of encoding DoD-relevant statements into IRs and for giving efficient ZK proofs in DoD-relevant scenarios.

Phase 2 will emphasize developing an initial integrated pipeline to take DoD-relevant, IR-encoded statements and provide ZK proofs for them.

Phase 3 will emphasize optimization and scaling techniques.

The program will be divided into three technical areas (TAs):

TA1: Constructing Useful ZK Statements TA2: Building Efficient ZK Proof Generation Compilers TA3: Post Quantum ZK

TA1 and TA2 performers should be prepared to work closely with each other in order to support integration of the TA1-generated problem statement IR-encodings with TA2-generated ZK proof

1 See, for example, Gentry and Wichs, Separating Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments from All Falsifiable Assumptions. STOC 2011

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 6 generation mechanisms using those statement encodings. To facilitate the open exchange of information, performers will have Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) language included in their award. See Section VIII.E for more information regarding an ACA. While TA3 performers will be a party to the ACA, it is expected that TA3 outputs will be largely independent of TA1 and TA2 work.

A combined TA1 and TA2 proposal is allowed. However, proposals to TA3 must be proposed separately from TA1 and/or TA2. If selected, TA2 performers must be able to implement IR-encoded statements from any TA1 performer.

C.1 Constructing Useful ZK Statements (TA1)

SIEVE TA1 will focus on generating encodings of real-world, DoD-relevant problem statements into an IR that could be used to generate an efficient ZK proof. SIEVE will primarily solicit construction of statements within the three classes of problems listed below, although additional classes can be proposed. Proposers are strongly encouraged to describe additional classes in an abstract submission before proceeding to a full proposal. Proposals may address some, all, or none of the below classes.

Statements about software: prove that software is vulnerable to an exploit without revealing details of the specific exploit; prove that encrypted2 software is secure, or performs certain functionalities, without revealing the underlying code.

Statements about computation: prove that specific computations have been correctly performed without revealing inputs, e.g., that a machine learning classifier was generated from allowable data without revealing that data; prove that specific outputs were derived without revealing the computation, e.g., that digital media was correctly generated from a class of allowable transforms without revealing the original media or the actual transforms used.

Statements about sociotechnical interactions: prove that a cyber attack was attributable to a particular actor given public, yet encrypted, threat actor information; prove that a set of computations follow a set of “plain English” policy specification, e.g., that a specific computation is General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliant without revealing the computation.

Depending on the particular application area, statement encodings may require a substantial formalization/encoding effort for the statement’s environment. As an example, a statement regarding an exploit may require formalizing aspects of the interaction of the exploit with the relevant computer system. TA1 deliverables will include both IR-encoded problem statements as well as the means (software, documentation) of transforming high-level problem statements into the IR encodings.

Strong TA1 proposals will demonstrate why, for a particular class of problem statement, they possess both sufficient domain expertise and the ability to create an encoding for that problem.

Strong TA1 proposals will present a compelling argument grounded in the current state of the art for how their IRs will enable efficient ZK proofs for their statements. In many cases, encodings will be with respect to statements that have complex branching conditions, and/or be about

2 i.e, cryptographically committed.

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 7 probabilistic phenomena. Strong proposals will present innovative IR encoding approaches that reduce computational complexity while meeting the needs of the program. Strong proposals will describe the interplay of problem statement expressivity versus security leakage (e.g., “fact of” creating a statement for a particular class of problem narrows interest to that specific class).

TA1 performers will have to work with TA2 performers to ensure that their problem statements are expressed in a format that TA2 performers can use to generate ZK proofs.

Metric Phase 1 (18 mo.) Phase 2 (18 mo.) Phase 3 (12 mo.)

TA1: Problem Classes Addressed

1 class (e.g., exploit class)

3 classes 5 classes

TA1: Intermediate Representation (IR) Size

Viable representation in an IR

10x smaller than previous phase

10x smaller than previous phase

TA1: Statement Complexity Handled

Loops (do/for) Conditionals (while) Probabilistic events

Table 1: TA1 Metrics

Statements whose primary relevance is for cryptocurrency transactions are out of scope.

C.2 Building Efficient ZK Proof Generation Compilers (TA2)

SIEVE TA2 will focus on generating new theory and software to generate efficient ZK proofs from an IR-encoded problem statement. More specifically, TA2 performers will create a collection of ZK proof generation mechanisms that can take as inputs 1) an IR-encoded problem statement and 2) desired optimization parameters (e.g., specifically optimize total complexity, verifier complexity, prover complexity, etc.), and will output the most efficient corresponding ZK proof (e.g., an interactive protocol specification for prover and verifier, together with relevant software to execute the protocol). TA2 performers may need to manipulate TA1-generated IR-encoded problem statements in order to optimize concrete ZK efficiency.

The process of constructing an optimal ZK proof does not have to be fully automated, in the sense that the IR manipulation and appropriate type of ZK proof may be manually selected given the inputs stated above. However, it is expected that once those have been selected, the generation of the ZK proof software given the (possibly manipulated) IR-encoded problem statement will be automated.

Because the types of proofs desired for SIEVE are those optimized for large, complex problem statements, ZK proofs that have more than one round and only linear complexity for each of prover, verifier and communication complexity are explicitly in scope, provided they can achieve sufficient concrete efficiency to be relevant for DoD applications. It is anticipated that in some settings, ZK proofs that take a day over powerful computers and a high-bandwidth network may be realistic for some DoD-relevant applications, and completely inappropriate in others. Proposals should carefully discuss the degree to which their solutions are appropriate to different possible real-world settings.

Proposals that minimize security assumptions are strongly desired. These assumptions include: setup (e.g., common random or reference string), non-standard hardness (e.g., some bi/multilinear group-based assumptions), non-falsifiable hardness (e.g., knowledge of exponent, [programmable] random

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 8 oracle), and adversary restrictions (e.g., generic or algebraic group model).3

Strong TA2 proposals will, for each class of ZK proof they propose to create (e.g., non-interactive vs constant round), justify a DoD-relevant employment scenario and carefully delineate any security assumptions they may require. Strong TA2 proposals will provide a basis to justify the efficiency of their proposed solutions, e.g., in terms of per-gate performance or other properties of an IR that make it more or less amenable to their approach. TA2 proposals should justify the concrete efficiency (e.g., bits of communication and seconds of computation) for the ZK proof classes that they wish to create. Proposals should specify the types of computers and networks that underlie such calculations, as well as how IR structure and/or size might have an impact. Proposals should not rely on the use of special purpose hardware, such as field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). The SIEVE test and evaluation (T&E) team will specify the reference implementation upon which the TA2 metrics will be measured.

TA2 performers will have to work with TA1 performers to ensure that they can create proofs for TA1-encoded problem statements. To that end, all TA2 performers will work together with TA1 and the T&E team to create a set of common standards for IRs (e.g., one each for Boolean circuits, arithmetic circuits, and rank 1 constraint systems), in order to ensure that all TA1-generated IRs can be easily used by all TA2 performers.

Metric Phase 1 (18 mo) Phase 2 (18 mo) Phase 3 (12 mo) Total Complexity O(n*log(k)+k) O(n+k) 100x smaller than

Phase 2 Max of Prover and Verifier Computation Time (modern desktop)

<10µs/gate <1µs/gate <0.1µs/gate

Communication Complexity

<100*n*log(k) bits <10*(n+k) bits <10*(sqrt(n)+k) bits

Table 2: TA2 Metrics n = statement size in the IR, k = security parameter, “total complexity” = sum of prover, verifier and communication complexity

Topics of research that are specifically out of scope for TA2 include:

Reliance on specialized (e.g., FPGA or ASIC) or secure (e.g., Intel SGX) hardware;

Cryptanalysis (other than security proofs for provided systems);

C.3 Post Quantum ZK (TA3)

SIEVE TA3 will focus on the creation of asymptotically efficient ZK proofs in the post quantum (PQ) setting. In particular, TA3 will focus on ZK proofs from PQ hardness assumptions and for statements relevant to PQ cryptography. Of particular interest are non-interactive ZK (NIZK) from PQ hardness assumptions and Sigma protocols4 for statements such as the well-formedness of PQ hard encryptions. In the case of NIZK, recent work has demonstrated the ability to have

3 These examples of assumptions are not intended to be exhaustive.

4 For example, see http://www.cs.au.dk/~ivan/Sigma.pdf http://www.cs.au.dk/~ivan/Sigma.pdf

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 9

NIZK in the plain learning with errors (LWE) setting5; however, such constructions must be made asymptotically efficient. In the Sigma protocol setting, many basic statements, such as the well-formedness of an LWE-based encryption, can be done either with superlinear complexity in the security parameter or with non-negligible soundness error; for TA3, linear complexity and negligible-soundness error constructions are desired.

While the above paragraph outlines two specific directions of research in PQ ZK, other directions in efficient PQ ZK may be in scope; proposers considering additional directions are strongly encouraged to submit abstracts to ensure such directions are in scope.

While the LWE hardness assumption is explicitly in scope, proposals that address ZK for other plausibly PQ assumptions are also in scope, provided that they enjoy widespread academic acceptance as plausibly PQ. Hardness assumptions that have efficient reductions to standard hardness assumptions, such as the shortest independent vector problem, are preferable to less-standard PQ hardness assumptions (e.g., search-LWE).

Metric Phase 1 (18 mo.) Phase 2 (18 mo.) Phase 3 (12 mo.)

Sigma protocol soundness error&, total complexity

1/k2 , O(k*polylog(k)) 1/kc , O(k*log(k)) 1/exp(k) , O(k)

PQ NIZK total complexity (assuming

O(k) statement) O(k4) O(k2) O(k)

Table 3: TA3 Metrics. k=security parameter, “total complexity” = sum of prover, verifier and communication complexity & assumes at least one other security property (e.g., ZK) is information theoretic

Topics of research that are specifically out of scope for TA3 include:

Reliance on non-falsifiable hardness assumptions (e.g., random oracle model) The development or security analysis of novel PQ hardness assumptions The development or security analysis of PQ encryption schemes

C.4 SIEVE Performer Collaboration Summaries

The following table outlines the expected collaboration efforts between the various TA teams:

TA Collaboration Required TA1 Work with TA2-led effort to create a common IR format so that all TA1-generated IRs can be used by all TA2 teams Assist T&E team to ensure they can assess correctness of IR-encoded problem statements as well as that IR sizes meet SIEVE metrics TA2 Lead effort to create a common IR format so that all TA1-generated IRs can be used by all TA2 teams.

Assist T&E team to ensure that they can assess ZK efficiency metrics

TA3 Active participation in PI meeting sessions to incorporate post-quantum security, if possible

5 See Peikert and Shiehian, Noninteractive Zero Knowledge for NP from (Plain) Learning With Error. CRYPTO 2019.

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 10

TA Collaboration Required T&E Evaluate TA1 and TA2 teams to ensure they meet SIEVE metrics

Design reference system implementation that TA2 technologies will be tested on.

Assist TA2-led team to create a common IR format

Table 4: Performer Collaboration Summary

D. Program Capability Demonstration

A test and evaluation (T&E) team will evaluate the correctness of TA1 IRs and the efficiency of TA2 ZK proofs. The T&E team will advise the IR standards document creation process. The T&E team will specify a reference architecture upon which TA2 solutions will be evaluated, including when they are used with TA1-generated IRs. The current intent is for the T&E team to host the specific system and network that comprises the reference architecture; TA2 teams will be required to enable T&E members to run their software, possibly with on-site assistance from TA2 team members.

The evaluation of TA3 technologies will largely depend on the peer review process for publication in prominent conferences and journals.

Phase 1 (18 mo.) Phase 2 (18 mo.) Phase 3 (12 mo.)

Testing emphasis

Investigate ability for TA2 to integrate TA1-generated IRs;

IR(s) used to evaluate TA2 technologies may be T&E-team generated or some reduced-complexity TA1-generated IRs

Test integrated solutions that use selected TA1-generated IRs with TA2-generated ZK proofs

Scale up testing of integrated solutions that use any TA1-generated IRs with TA2-generated ZK proofs

Table 5: Test and Evaluation Progression

The Government will be responsible for T&E. As a result, DARPA is not soliciting proposals for the T&E team under this BAA.

E. Schedule and Milestones

DARPA anticipates an April 2020 start date for the SIEVE program. The program will run for 48 months and has been organized into three (3) phases. Phases 1 and 2 will be 18 months each, Phase 3 will be 12 months. See Figure 1 below for details.

There will be biannual, two-day principal investigator (PI) meetings to review technical progress and provide an opportunity for face-to-face collaboration. For travel planning purposes, assume PI meetings alternate between the Washington, D.C. area and the San Francisco area. T&E evaluations will start three months prior to the end of each phase.

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 11

Figure 1 - SIEVE program schedule

F. Deliverables

All proposers awarded procurement contracts or Other Transactions (OTs) will be required to provide, at a minimum, the following deliverables:

Any technical papers derived from work funded by the SIEVE program;

All data and documentation for artifacts and algorithms in addition to software, to include commented source code, developed under this program, will be provided no later than at the end of each phase, and as appropriate for test and evaluation;

Annotated slide presentations must be submitted within one week after the program kickoff meeting and after each program event (program reviews, PI meetings, and technical interchange meetings);

Quarterly technical status reports detailing progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks, planned activities, trip summaries, changes to key personnel, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the Government team must be provided within 15 calendar days of the end of each quarter;

Monthly financial status reports must be provided within 15 calendar days of the end of each calendar month; and

A final phase report for each program phase that concisely summarizes the effort conducted, technical achievements, and remaining technical challenges will be due 30 calendar days after the end of each phase; and a Final Report at the end of the overall period of performance that summarizes the entire project.

Proposers awarded assistance instruments may be required to submit similar reports, as well as software for testing and analysis purposes that would be returned after the analysis is completed.

G. Intellectual Property

A key goal of the SIEVE program is to establish an open, standards-based, multi-source, plug-and-play architecture that allows for interoperability and integration. This includes the ability to easily add, remove, substitute, and modify software and hardware components. This will facilitate rapid innovation by providing a base for future users or developers of program technologies and deliverables. Therefore, it is desired that all software (including source code), software documentation, hardware designs and documentation, and technical data generated by the program be provided as deliverables to the Government, with a minimum of Government Purpose Rights (GPR), as lesser rights may adversely impact the lifecycle costs of affected items, components, or processes. See Section VI.B.1 for more details on intellectual property (IP).

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 12

H. Abbreviations

ACA Associated Contractor Agreement CUI Controlled Unclassified Information IR Intermediate Representation TA Technical Area LWE Learning with Errors PQ Post-Quantum ZK Zero Knowledge

II. Award Information

A. Awards

DARPA anticipates multiple awards for each of TA1, TA2 and TA3. The level of funding for individual awards made under this solicitation has not been predetermined and will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. Awards will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered, including the potential contributions of the proposed work, overall funding strategy, and availability of funding. See Section V for further information.

The Government reserves the right to:

select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation;

make awards without discussions with proposers;

conduct discussions with proposers if it is later determined to be necessary;

segregate portions of resulting awards into pre-priced options;

accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award;

fund proposals in increments and/or with options for continued work at the end of one or more phases;

request additional documentation once the award instrument has been determined (e.g., representations and certifications); and remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner.

For TAs 1, 2 and 3, proposals selected for award negotiation may result in a procurement contract, cooperative agreement or Other Transaction (OT) Agreement depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors. In addition, grants may be awarded for TA3.

For TAs 1, 2 and 3, proposals selected for award negotiation may result in a procurement contract or Other Transaction (OT) Agreement depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors. Grants and Cooperative Agreements may be awarded for TA3 only.

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 13

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 expects that program goals as described herein may be met by proposed efforts for fundamental research and non-fundamental research. Some proposed research may present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Based on the anticipated type of proposer (e.g., university or industry) and the nature of the solicited work, the Government expects that some awards will include 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.

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

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 14

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.

C. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls

The following provisions and clause apply to all solicitations and contracts; however, the definition of “controlled technical information” clearly exempts work considered fundamental research and therefore, even though included in the contract, will not apply if the work is fundamental research.

DFARS 252.204-7000, “Disclosure of Information” DFARS 252.204-7008, “Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls” DFARS 252.204-7012, “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting”

The full text of the above solicitation provision and contract clauses can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa#NPRPAC.

Compliance with the above requirements includes the mandate for proposers to implement the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations” (see https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171r1) that are in effect at the time the BAA is issued.

For awards where the work is considered fundamental research, the contractor will not have to implement the aforementioned requirements and safeguards. However, should the nature of the work change during performance of the award, work not considered fundamental research will be subject to these requirements.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

DARPA welcomes engagement from all responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs, including academia (colleges and universities); businesses (large, small, small disadvantaged, etc.); other organizations (including non-profit); other entities (foreign, domestic, and government); FFRDCs; minority institutions; and others.

DARPA welcomes engagement from non-traditional sources in addition to current DARPA performers.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa#NPRPAC https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171r1

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 15

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.

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. Foreign Participation 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

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 16 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 (e.g., OTs under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371).

For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions, 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

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 17

This document contains all information required to submit a response to this solicitation. No additional forms, kits, or other materials are needed except as referenced herein. No request for proposal (RFP) or additional solicitation regarding this opportunity will be issued, nor is additional information available except as provided at the Federal Business Opportunities website (https://www.fbo.gov), the Grants.gov website (https://www.grants.gov/), or referenced herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

1. Abstracts Proposers are highly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out of scope proposal. The abstract provides a synopsis of the proposed project, including brief answers to the following questions:

What is the proposed work attempting to accomplish or do?

How is it done today, and what are the limitations?

Who will care and what will the impact be if the work is successful?

How much will it cost, and how long will it take?

DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea. If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all conforming full proposals using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any comments resulting from the review of an abstract.

Abstract Format: Abstracts shall not exceed a maximum of (5) pages including the cover sheet and all figures, tables, and charts. The page limit does not include a submission letter (optional).

Reminder - Each abstract submitted in response to this BAA shall address only one TA.

Organizations may submit multiple abstracts to any one TA, or they may submit abstracts to multiple TAs.

All pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with 1-inch margins and font size not smaller than 12 point. Font sizes of 8 or 10 point may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Document files must be in .pdf, .odx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats.

Submissions must be written in English. All pages should be numbered.

Abstracts must include the following components:

Cover Sheet: Provide the administrative and technical points of contact (name, address, phone, email, lead organization). Include the BAA number, title of the proposed project, primary subcontractors, estimated cost, duration of the project, and the label “Abstract.”

Goals and Impact: Describe what is being proposed and what difference it will make (qualitatively and quantitatively) if successful. Describe the innovative aspects of the https://www.fbo.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 18 project in the context of existing capabilities and approaches, clearly delineating the relationship of this work to any other projects from the past and present.

Technical Plan: Outline and address all technical challenges inherent in the approach and possible solutions for overcoming potential problems. Provide appropriate specific milestones (quantitative, if possible) at intermediate stages of the project to demonstrate progress.

Capabilities/Management Plan: Provide a brief summary of expertise of the team, including subcontractors and key personnel. Identify a principal investigator for the project and include a description of the team’s organization including roles and responsibilities. Describe the organizational experience in this area, existing intellectual property required to complete the project, and any specialized facilities to be used as part of the project. List Government-furnished property, facilities, or data assumed to be available. If desired, include a brief bibliography with links to relevant papers, reports, or resumes of key performers. Do not include more than two resumes as part of the abstract. Resumes count against the abstract page limit.

Statement of Work, Cost and Schedule: Provide a cost estimate for resources over the proposed timeline of the project, broken down by year. Include labor, materials, a list of deliverables and delivery schedule. Provide cost estimates for each subcontractor (may be a rough order of magnitude).

2. Proposals Proposals consist of Volume 1: Technical and Management Proposal (including mandatory Appendix A and optional Appendix B); Volume 2: Cost Proposal; the Level of Effort Summary by Task Excel spreadsheet; and the PowerPoint summary slide.

All pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with 1-inch margins, single-line spacing, and a font size not smaller than 12 point. Font sizes of 8 or 10 point may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Document files must be in .pdf, .odx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or .xlsx formats. Submissions must be written in English. All pages of Volume 1 should be numbered.

A summary slide of the proposed effort, in PowerPoint format, should be submitted with the proposal. A template slide is provided as an attachment to the BAA. Submit this PowerPoint file in addition to Volumes 1 and 2 of your full proposal, and the Level of Effort Summary by Task Excel spreadsheet. This summary slide does not count towards the total page count.

Organizations may submit multiple proposals to any one TA, or they may propose to multiple TAs. As a reminder, organizations can submit combined proposals for TA1 and TA2. Proposals for TA3 must be written separately and CANNOT be combined with proposals for TA1 and/or TA2.

Proposals not meeting the format prescribed herein may not be reviewed.

a. Volume 1: Technical and Management Proposal

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 19

The maximum page count for Volume 1 is 34 pages, including all figures, tables and charts, but not including the cover sheet, table of contents or appendices. Proposals that combine TA1 and TA2 will have a Volume 1 page count limit of 42 pages. A submission letter is optional and is not included in the page count. Appendix A does not count against the page limit and is mandatory. Appendix B does not count against the page limit and is optional.

Additional information not explicitly called for here must not be submitted with the proposal, but may be included in the bibliography in Appendix B. Such materials will be considered for the reviewers’ convenience only and not evaluated as part of the proposal.

Volume 1 must include the following components:

i. Cover Sheet: Include the following information.

Label: “Proposal: Volume 1” BAA number (HR001119S0076) Technical Area(s) Proposal title Lead organization (prime contractor) name Type of organization, selected from the following categories: Large Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Other Small Business, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, or Other Nonprofit

Technical point of contact (POC) including name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address

Administrative POC including name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address

Award instrument requested: procurement contract (specify type), grant, cooperative agreement or OT.6

Total amount of the proposed effort Place(s) and period(s) of performance Other team member (subcontractors and consultants) information (for each, include Technical POC name, organization, type of organization, mailing address, telephone number, and email address)

Proposal validity period (minimum 120 days) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number7 Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)8 Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code9 Proposer’s reference number (if any)

6 Information on award instruments can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management.

7 The DUNS number is used as the Government's contractor identification code for all procurement-related activities. Go to http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/index.jsp to request a DUNS number (may take at least one business day). For further information regarding this subject, please see www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa for further information.

8 See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayer-identification-numbers-tin for information on requesting a TIN. Note, requests may take from 1 business day to 1 month depending on the method (online, fax, mail).

9 A CAGE Code identifies companies doing or wishing to do business with the Federal Government. For further information regarding this subject, please see www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/index.jsp http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

HR001119S0076 SECURING INFORMATION FOR ENCRYPTED VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION (SIEVE) 20

ii. Table of Contents

iii. Executive Summary: Provide a synopsis of…