HR001120S0003.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement

Network Universal Persistence (Network UP) Phase 2

STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001120S0003

November 14, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Overview B. Program Metrics C. Transition

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

IX. APPENDIX 1: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY

X. APPENDIX 2: VOLUME 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE

XI. APPENDIX 3: VOLUME 2 COVER SHEET, CHECKLIST AND SAMPLE

TEMPLATES

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Strategic Technology Office (STO) Funding Opportunity Title – Network Universal Persistence (Network UP) Phase II Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001120S0003 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: November 14, 2019 o Abstract Due Date and Time: November 26, 2019 by 4:00 p.m., ET o Abstract Response Date: December 4, 2019, by 4:00 p.m., ET o Proposal Due Date and Time: January 7, 2020 by 4:00 p.m., ET o FAQ Deadline: November 26, 2019 by 4:00 p.m., ET o FAQ Response/Posting Date: December 4, 2019

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in radio and network architectures that maintain network reliability through periods of data channel degradation. Specifically, a network with separate control and data channels is envisioned. By the end of the program, the proposed solution should be implemented in hardware to include relevant tactical radios for the data channel.

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:

HR001120S0003@darpa.mil.

DARPA/STO

ATTN: HR001120S0003

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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 areas: radio architectures and technology and network architectures and technology that maintain network reliability through periods of high channel degradation.

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.

A. Program Overview

Background & Motivation Phase 1 of the Network Universal Persistence (Network UP) program developed new radio technology that maintains network reliability through periods of frequent signal degradation that routinely occur during military operational environments shown in Figure 1 (e.g., propagation through dense foliage and urban buildings as well as in the presence of peer jamming). Phase 2 of the program, as solicited by this BAA, will implement the networking technology developed in Phase 1 into existing military radio networks, culminating in field demonstrations of prototype radios suitable for military experimentation.

Figure 1: Network UP will operate through degradation common in wireless environments

The Network UP program’s key insight is that isolation of the critical control information in a separate, robust wireless link will allow creation of a highly protected control plane that can maintain network reliability even when the data plane is lost. A significant problem with many of today’s military wireless networks is that even brief wireless link outages have the potential to disrupt network connectivity completely, as data transmission is not possible during these outages. During short windows of link availability, current mobile military wireless networks often spend a significant amount of time attempting to establish or re-establish the network rather than sending data, resulting in missed communication opportunities.

Today’s radios send network control information and user data via the same wireless link. This has the potential to create a common failure mode when the wireless link degrades. Wireless network designers understand the importance of the control information and generally design-in limited protection, such as redundancy and error correction coding. These protection mechanisms typically provide less than ten decibels (dB) of protection and cannot overcome the tens of dB degradation in typical wireless environments. Additionally, in-band protection mechanisms reduce link capacity that could otherwise be used to send data.

Network UP Approach The Network UP program will overcome these challenges by introducing link diversity, i.e., by separating the control information and data information using two different wireless links (see Figure 2). In sharing a common wireless link for both network control information and user data, network designers must compromise between using link capacity to achieve high data rates or by using link capacity to increase link margin (i.e. link protection). Similarly, and more fundamentally, compromise is required in selecting between a low frequency band that can penetrate obstacles or a high frequency band that offers the highest data rates.

Figure 2: Network UP approach contrasted with today’s networks

By dedicating one wireless link to “control” and a separate wireless link to user “data,” the compromise of frequency band selection and the compromise between high data rate vs. link protection is greatly reduced. This approach allows developers to exploit the relatively low bit rate requirements of the control information and match the control link frequency best suited to the environment, creating a robust control link that can withstand tens of dB of degradation, all without reducing the data channel capacity. We refer to the group of control links throughout the network as the ‘control plane’ and the group of data links throughout the network as the ‘data plane’. Note that the control and data planes may share hardware or reside on different hardware.

Proposers should describe the advantages and disadvantages to their proposed approach for creating separate control and data planes.

Program Structure Phase 2 teams may be composed of existing Phase 1 performers, new performers not currently executing Phase 1 of the program, or a combination of new and existing performers. Current Phase 1 performers should not assume the Government knows what their approach will be in Phase 2, and should write their proposals accordingly.

Phase 1 demonstrated that the conceptually simple Network UP approach can have profound performance gains, but it also introduced a number of key challenges – each of which informs a Phase 2 focus area. Conforming proposals will address all focus areas with an integrated project approach, culminating in a final product that will be demonstrated on a Radio Frequency (RF) test range. Proposers are encouraged to build teams with the necessary expertise to address each focus area as well as all other aspects necessary to design, build, and test prototype networks.

The end result of Phase 2 is to build and demonstrate a complete Network UP system. To that end, the Focus Areas call out specific areas of emphasis that will exist in a complete system and solution.

Focus Area 1 (FA-1): Create a highly resilient control channel. While lower data rates and frequency bands can significantly improve channel resiliency, proposers need to identify, design, and implement a complete control plane solution that is resilient to environmental path loss, interference, and jamming. Proposers will also need to demonstrate that the control plane can continue to operate in operationally complex environments (e.g. high vegetation and urban areas) and against adversary attacks (e.g. both uninformed and intelligent jamming attacks). However, in spite of all efforts to keep the control plane up, at some point it will unavoidably come down.

Proposers should offer approaches to mitigate this risk, and identify and mitigate other risks associated with a separate control plane design, including quick recovery of the control plane when it inevitably does go down.

FA-1 Objectives (see Phase 2 Metrics Table 3 on page 12 for threshold and objective targets):

Develop an operational prototype of a control plane, including both software and hardware that is highly resilient to interference and has sufficient capacity to manage a data network on a separate wireless link.

Demonstrate the ability of the control plane to keep the network functioning even if the data plane is overwhelmed by natural or manmade interference.

Demonstrate the ability of the control plane to withstand significant in-band signal degradation.

Develop and demonstrate control plane management techniques that quickly restore control plane interconnectivity in case the control plane is disrupted.

Focus Area 2: Manage a data network from a separate control plane. The premise of the Network UP program is that maintaining the network via a robust control plane maximizes data throughput since the network can send data over the data link as soon as the link is available (see Figure 3). Phase 1 demonstrated that a control plane may be a powerful way to coordinate highly directional links, ad-hoc data plane frequency movement, or other link state information enabling advanced dynamic networking techniques beyond the original program premise. Proposals should identify 1) what networking techniques are enabled by the proposed approach and 2) quantitative estimates of performance gains that these networking techniques yield relative to the performance of existing military networks. These estimates will both motivate the proposed development and serve as additional metrics to monitor program performance. Proposals must address the design and development approach for hardware and network architectures that integrate the information exchange necessary to manage such a network.

FA-2 Objectives (see Phase 2 Metrics Table 3 for threshold and objective targets):

Develop an operational prototype of a combined control and data planes in separate frequency bands that can continue to operate in environments with extreme signal degradation in both the control and data frequency bands.

Demonstrate the ability of the control plane to opportunistically transmit user data across the data plane in diverse interference scenarios (e.g. urban, dense foliage, jamming).

Demonstrate additional networking techniques enabled by a separate control plane and quantify their benefit to existing military networks.

Figure 3: Network UP maximizes the data sent over an episodic wireless network

Focus Area 3: Interface with legacy military radio networks. Implementing the Network Up approach with existing military radios and operational waveforms is the distinguishing feature between Phase 1 and Phase 2 efforts. Phase 2 of Network UP is soliciting proposals, via this BAA, to build a network with operationally relevant radio platforms for use with tactical data links and a control link waveform. While any tactical legacy radio platform and data link waveform may be proposed for the data channel, compelling proposals will speak to the operational relevance of the proposed system, and the potential benefits provided by the Network UP approach.

Each performer will be required to integrate Network UP capabilities with at least one existing/legacy military radio platform for the data channel. Proposers should explicitly describe the attributes of the radio platform and data waveforms required for their proposed approach as well as their method for interfacing the legacy radio with their Network UP solution. Proposers should highlight the versatility as well as the performance of their proposed solution.

Additionally, proposers should identify existing military radio platforms and/or waveforms that are ill suited for their approach (i.e., identify legacy radios that will NOT integrate with their solution without significant redesign). Acceptable solutions may implement the tactical waveform/radio on the platform of their choice, including an SDR platform.

DARPA acknowledges the difficulties and associated costs in modifying systems with operational encryption. To reduce equipment and testing costs, engineering systems without encryption enabled or that use unclassified encryption keys are acceptable for this effort.

FA-3 Objectives:

Identify legacy data radios/networks that can benefit from Network UP technology and describe their current shortcomings when their network connectivity is interrupted.

Estimate the benefits/performance improvements of the network when using Network UP technology.

Determine the suitability of the legacy data radio chosen for integration with the control plane developed in FA-1.

Build integrated Network UP radio nodes that connect the Network UP control plane with a relevant military radio as the data plane.

Conduct a wireless demonstration with multiple mobile nodes.

Harden the prototype system sufficiently for independent field evaluation by military partners.

Program Execution Plan DARPA has structured Network UP as a two-phase program (See Figure 4). Phase 1 of the program is ongoing and will conclude during the second quarter of fiscal year 2020 (approximately end of February 2020). Phase 2, as solicited by this BAA, will integrate the Network UP control channel with a legacy military radio to demonstrate how Network UP solutions can improve performance of existing military wireless networks. Whereas Phase 1 was more exploratory in nature, Phase 2 is aggressively focused on implementation and experimentation of Network UP enabled radios.

Phase 2 is divided into a Base Effort and Option Period with all work leading up to the CDR included in the Base Effort.

Figure 4: Network UP program schedule

Phase 1 (for reference). Phase 1 of Network UP developed radio architectures including methods to create a highly protected control plane (Technical Area 1, TA-1), and developed techniques to establish a bursty data plane composed of physically separated control and data links (Technical Area 2, TA-2). TA-1 developed reliable and efficient means to determine data plane availability and implemented reliable control link waveforms that can operate in the presence of significant signal degradation. TA-2 designed a scalable network that relies on a control plane that resides in a separate radio frequency band from the data plane, and minimized the amount of network traffic that the control plane sends to maintain the network.

Phase 2. The primary objective of Phase 2 is to deliver a working and robust Network UP radio network that can be independently exercised by military partners. As such, the program structure follows a more formal systems engineering structure with a Preliminary Design Review (PDR), a Critical Design Review (CDR), Integration and Engineering Testing, a Test Readiness Review

(TRR), and a Final Demonstration. However, unlike formal systems engineering processes there will be no formal requirements, requirements verification, or acceptance criteria.

Base Effort Plus Option Period: Phase 2 is divided into a Base Effort, covering the first eight

(8) months of the program, including the CDR and ending two (2) months after the CDR, and a ten (10) month Option Period. During the Option Period, the final test, development, implementation and demonstration of a working Network UP system is completed.

Proposals should outline the major risk areas for their approach to include technical and programmatic risks. Risks should be assessed according to standard U.S. Department of Defense practices with likelihood and impact assessments, and mitigation strategies. At the PDR, performers will present detailed analysis of their designs and evidence indicating the expected levels of performance against the program metrics and project risks. The CDR will be held six

(6) months into Phase 2, where design analyses will be supported by simulation and early experimentation. This comprehensive review will determine whether the proposed Option Period will be exercised.

Separate Base Effort and Option Period Costing: Tasking for the first eight (8) months of the program should be costed as the Phase 2 Base Effort with a separately costed option for the remaining ten (10) months of the Phase. The Base Effort includes all work up to and including the CDR, along with an additional two (2) months of effort following the CDR. This costing structure allows the Government to either 1) exercise the option for a performer to continue development on the Network UP program with no funding gap or 2) to decline to exercise the Option Period. If the option is not exercised, performers will discontinue development efforts and use the remaining two (2) months of the Base Effort to document their work and provide a final report.

By the end of Phase 2, the performer(s) will have built and integrated their Network UP control radio with an existing military data radio. The concluding demonstration will establish that a significant performance improvement in data delivery is achievable by separating the control plane from the data plane. Performers will provide Extendable Mobile Ad-hoc Network Emulator (EMANE) simulation results on the performance of their approach each quarter, beginning in month six after contract award (ACA). A Government Red Team may be used to independently test and verify the EMANE simulation results. Further, the program will have demonstrated at least one plausible approach for applying the Network UP technology to currently fielded military radios and networks.

Performers will be responsible for planning and conducting their tests and demonstrations. It is anticipated that a portion of the final demonstration will be conducted over the air at a test range.

The Government test team will participate in test and demonstration planning, and will help coordination of test facilities as needed, but the primary responsibility for test planning and facility coordination lies with the performer team.

Phase 2 deliverables are listed in Table 1 and should be formatted according to the preference of the performer to convey the required information within the documents, consistent with standard engineering and business practices. The deliverables in the table represent the minimum deliverables required for Phase 2. Proposers may propose additional deliverables, but a clear justification for the utility of the additional deliverables must be provided for evaluation.

Table 1 Deliverable Due Date

Base Effort Technical & Financial Status Reports Monthly Program Protection Plan 2 months After Contract Award (ACA) Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Package 2 business days prior to meeting Critical Design Review (CDR) Package 5 business days prior to meeting

Option Period Test Readiness Review (TRR) Package 2 business days prior to meeting Other Briefing Materials (including Final Review)

24 hours in advance

Test Plans 30 days prior to test event (if classified) or 2 weeks prior to test event (if unclassified)

Technical Data Package containing work products including software, engineering artifacts, and analysis products

As Required

Government Evaluation Support Documentation As Required User Documentation (to support stand-alone military experimentation)

17 months ACA

Table 1: Phase 2 Deliverables

Performers should plan to attend all program related events listed in Table 2. Large meetings should be scheduled at performer facilities to maximize the number of attendees and minimize the cost to the Government.

Table 2 Event Venue Months After Contract Award

Base Effort Phase 2 Kick-off Meeting DARPA or Performer

Facility

Bi-Weekly Program Calls Telephone As Scheduled Quarterly Program Reviews

(QPR)

DARPA or Performer Facility

As Scheduled (no QPR will be required during quarters where a PDR, CDR, TRR, or Final Review is held)

PDR Performer Facility 3 CDR Performer Facility 6

Option Period Engineering Test Performer Selected

Test Range

TRR Performer Facility 13 Final Demonstration Performer Selected

Test Range

Final Review Performer Facility 17 Table 2: Phase 2 Events

B. Program Metrics

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed solution in achieving the stated program objectives, proposers should note that the Government hereby promulgates the following program metrics that may serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. Although the following program metrics are specified, proposers should note that the Government has identified these goals with the intention of bounding the scope of effort, while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in proposing solutions to the stated problem.

Proposals should cite the quantitative and qualitative success criteria that the proposed effort will achieve by the time of each Phase’s program metric measurement.

Table 3 Metric Threshold

(Minimum desired outcome) Objective

(Best desired outcome)

Network Resiliency

Demonstrate over a single link that the control link can withstand 40 dB of signal degradation and continue transmitting/receiving data.

Demonstrate over a single link that the control link can withstand 70 dB of signal degradation and continue transmitting/receiving data.

Network Performance

Demonstrate integrated Network UP radio (legacy radio with Network UP applique) can deliver at least 60% of theoretical data rate for link outages of up to 70%.

Demonstrate integrated Network UP radio (legacy radio with Network UP applique) can deliver at least 70% of theoretical data rate for link outages of up to 80%.

Interoperability

Enable Network UP using military data radios with legacy waveform for data p with a separate, performer chosen radio, for the control plane.

Go beyond threshold requirement to provide fully integrated solution for combined control plane and data plane (e.g., by using an applique and an additional radio card, a two-channel radio, or a wide band radio with sufficient bandwidth to host both control and data frequency bands).

Scalability Demonstrate solution can support networks of various scales. The number of network participants should scale (large and small) to meet CONOPS appropriate to the type of network (e.g. air or ground) chosen.

Table 3: Phase 2 Metrics

Network Design. The metrics listed above in Table 3 will be demonstrated with a control network and a data network that operate on separate frequency bands, where the control network monitors, but does not rely on the data network.

C. Transition

Proposals should address transition of their solution to the military. The selection process will emphasize the realism of the proposer’s transition plan.

During Phase 2, the DARPA Government team will conduct discussions with military service partners concerning transition options. Performers are expected to be involved in transition discussions with the DARPA Government team and military partners after the contract is awarded. Each performer team should be prepared to discuss their conceptual transition plans with the DARPA Government team within three months after the start of Phase 2, and each quarter thereafter.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

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

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

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

In 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.

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

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

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to 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.

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

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. United States Enterprises include:

Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses Accredited degree granting colleges and universities Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations

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.

(1) 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.

(2) When proposing to perform classified work, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to contract award. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

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

FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.

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

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

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

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

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.

http://www.dss.mil/

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

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

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, 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, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

1. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal. This procedure is intended to minimize unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and review. In particular, abstracts should address the radios and networks proposers plan to use for the data and control planes, and the interfaces between them, allowing government the opportunity to provide feedback. Proposal abstracts should follow the general format below. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed four {4} pages. The maximum pages count excludes the cover page, and official transmittal letter but does include any figures, tables, and charts. Official transmittal letter is not required.

http://www.darpa.mil/

Cover sheet to include:

1. BAA number (HR001120S0003);

2. Technical area (see Sec I.A.);

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. Abstract title;

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

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

10. Estimated funds requested from DARPA for each phase proposed and the total estimated proposed cost; and the amount of cost share (if any); AND

11. Date abstract was prepared.

Abstracts may be structured as you wish. Below is one example of an abstract structure. The proposer may organize the abstract as they wish; however, the total length must not exceed four {4} pages.

{1/2} Executive Summary:

Includes a title and an abstract that provides a concise summary of work to be performed and basic approaches to be used.

{3} Summary of Technical Approach:

The technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishments of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production should be summarized.

{1/2} Summary of Estimated Cost, Schedule, and Milestones:

Summarize, in table form, estimated cost, schedule, and milestones for the proposed research.

2. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without review. Proposals shall consist of two volumes. All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with type not smaller than 12-point. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables and charts. The page limitation for proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas, as they relate to the three Focus Areas described above. 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. Bracketed numbers before each section below denote recommended page limits. The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. The maximum page length for each section are shown in parenthesis [x] below. The suggested page lengths for each section are shown in brackets {x} below. All proposals must be written in English.

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

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

(1) Section I: Administrative [1]

(a) Cover Sheet to Include

(1) BAA number (HR001120S0003);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

(2) Section II: Summary of Proposal [6]

A. {2}Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation. (In the full proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III of the Technical and Management Proposal.).

B. {1}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. {1} Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization. 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.3.h of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

D. {1} General discussion of other research in this area.

E. {1} 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.

F. A three-slide summary of the proposal in MS PowerPoint™ that quickly and succinctly indicates the concept overview, key innovations, expected impact, and other unique aspects of the proposal. The format for the summary slides is included as APPENDIX 1 to this BAA, and does not count against the page limit.

(3) Section III: Detailed Proposal Information [18]

A. {3} Statement of Work (SOW) - 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: The SOW should be developed so that the Base Effort and Option Period are separately defined.

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

B. {2} 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.3.h of this BAA, “Intellectual Property.”

C. {4} Detailed technical approach enhancing and completing that of the Summary of Proposal.

D. {1} Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

E. {1} Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas.

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

G. {1} Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort.

H. {2} Detail support enhancing that of Summary of Proposal, including formal teaming agreements which are required to execute this program.

I. {2} Provide description of milestone cost and accomplishments.

J. {1} Cost schedules and measurable milestones for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the proposed awardee and major subawardees, 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. These milestones should enable and support a decision for the next part of the effort. Additional interim non-critical management milestones are also highly encouraged at regular intervals. Where the effort consists of multiple portions, which 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:

(1) Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001120S0003)

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

“LARGE BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED

BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS”, “HBCU”, “MI”,

“OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

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

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

(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

(14) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

(15) Date proposal was prepared;

(16) DUNS number;

(17) TIN number;

(18) CAGE Code;

(19) Subawardee Information; AND

(20) Proposal validity period.

(2) 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 and should include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation.

(b) Cost Breakdown Information and Format

Detailed cost breakdown to include:

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

Major program tasks by fiscal year.

An itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases.

Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs

(vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates,…