HR001120S0010-Amendment-02.pdf

HR001120S0010

Broad Agency Announcement

Sea Train

Tactical Technology Office

HR001120S0010

Amendment 2

February 6, 2020

The purpose of Amendment 00002 is to:

1) Fix section Part II.1.D. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations, page 18.

2) Incorporate questions and answers, 43-47.

All other sections remain unchanged.

Changes are highlighted in yellow throughout the document.

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background and Overview B. Program Description C. Program Plan and Risk Management Approach D. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations E. Government Management Approach and Operations

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission

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

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices and Notifications B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO) Funding Opportunity Title – Sea Train Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001120S0010 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Proposers Day: December 17, 2019 o Posting Date: January 6, 2020 o Questions Due Date: January 20, 2020, 11:59pm (Midnight), ET o Proposal Due Date and Time: February 20, 2020, 2:00pm ET

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Tactical Technology Office (TTO) seeks to enable extended transoceanic transit and long range naval operations by exploiting the efficiencies of a system of connected vessels (Sea Train). The Sea Train will demonstrate long range deployment capabilities for a distributed fleet of tactical Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs).

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or other transaction.

Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001120S0010@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001120S0010

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 to develop and demonstrate approaches to overcome the range limitations inherit for Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels (MUSVs) by exploiting wave making resistance reductions.

Sea Trains can be formed by physically connecting vessels with various degrees of freedom between the vessels, or vessels sailing in collaborative formations at various distances between the vessels. DARPA is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical areas:

Technical Area 1: Development, validation, and demonstration of an integrated design comprising a hull form, hull connector, propulsion, and gap mitigation between the vessels to achieve Sea Train efficiencies for MUSVs.

Technical Area 2: Development and demonstration of a dynamic control architecture capable of monitoring environmental conditions, multi-vessel alignment and spacing, and structural loads and moments to develop real-time control solutions to maximize Sea Train efficiency and seaway survivability.

DARPA is very interested in non-traditional approaches that reduce risk early in the program. Early, aggressive, and insightful modeling, analysis, and testing is encouraged and desired. Potential early failures that burn down risk and lead toward a more capable product are encouraged. 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.

The DARPA Sea Trains program seeks to revolutionize the next generation of Unmanned Surface Vessels. This BAA encompasses a two-phase effort:

Phase 1: Conceptual design, analysis, simulation, and scaled model testing Phase 2: Conceptual design updates, analysis, simulation, additional scaled model testing

A. Program Background and Overview

1. Motivation for the DARPA Sea Train Program

An increasingly complex security environment has driven the Navy and Marine Corps to shift from exquisite capabilities centralized on a small number of large manned platforms to a distributed fleet comprised of smaller, risk-worthy platforms. A key element of this operational shift is the growing application of USVs to conduct surveillance, logistics, electronic warfare, expeditionary warfare, and offensive operations. These smaller, versatile, and more agile vessels have the tactical capabilities and flexibility to support a wide range of missions where focused operations and increased vessel numbers assure flexible responses against asymmetric threats.

Whether conducting independent operations or complementing a manned surface ship, the distributed group of USVs may provide a more dynamic, rapid response capability while increasing the geospatial coverage of maritime operations. A key limitation of USVs is their restricted operational ranges due to increased wave making resistance inherent with smaller platforms. At-sea refueling, use of heavy-lift ships, strategic airlift, and increasing overall vessel size are all solutions to this limitation but are fraught with operational vulnerabilities against peer adversaries.

2. Sea Trains Program Goals

To enable USVs to operate more effectively in these challenging operational scenarios, DARPA is seeking proposals to develop new deployment approaches for USVs aimed at reducing wave making resistance of MUSVs. This approach, referred to simply as “Sea Trains,” seeks to significantly decrease the wave making resistance of a system of vessels to increase operational range. The Sea Train concept envisions a four vessel Sea Train system capable of long range transits (e.g. 6500 nautical miles), disaggregated operations on-station as independent MUSVs (e.g. 1000 nautical miles), and re-aggregation and Sea Train transit for the return trip (e.g. 6500 nautical miles).

DARPA considers three potential approaches within the Sea Trains concept:

Connected Sea Train: Physical connection between four or more consecutive vessels during transit operations. The connected Sea Trains approach creates the equivalent of a long parallel mid-body for the vessel to decrease the wave making resistance, while enabling the vessels to disaggregate to conduct tactical missions. The key insight of the connected concept is the reduction of the Froude number for connected operations, yielding significant reductions in wave making resistance.

Connectorless Sea Train: Utilizes compressive forces to keep four or more consecutive vessels together with the goal of reducing connector loads and moments. Connectorless approaches also create the equivalent of a long parallel mid-body for the vessel to decrease the wave making resistance, while enabling the vessels to disaggregate to conduct tactical missions. The key insight of the connectorless concept is the reduction of the Froude number for connected operations, yielding significant reductions in wave making resistance.

Formation Sea Train: Four or more vessels transit in close lateral and longitudinal formation to exploit wave interference between the vessels. These concepts are envisioned to utilize surface wave cancellation to minimize the collective wave making resistance of the Sea Train system without requiring physical connections.

DARPA is interested in these technical approaches, or others offered by proposers to reduce total resistance of the vessels, however DARPA values solutions that achieve the greatest total drag reductions to meet the program vignette and metrics provided in this BAA. The efficiencies in wave making resistance must be achieved without offsetting with a friction drag increase or with a resulting hull design that is significantly compromised in disaggregated operations. Proposers may only offer one concept. Previous research indicates each approach has operational and technical value with unique technical risks and challenges. DARPA encourages proposers to thoroughly characterize the operational value and unique insights to overcome the technical risks and challenges for their Sea Train approach. Proposers must address vessel performance when disaggregated as well as in the train configuration.

For clarity and consistency, the Sea Trains program will use the following system and component definitions:

Sea Train: A system of vessels operating in a coordinated formation, potentially using physical connections, to significantly reduce wave making resistance.

Connector: For connected or connectorless concepts, a physical approach that allows for linking multiple vessels at different degrees of freedom.

Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV): Defined as 12 – 50 meter USVs per the Navy’s Unmanned Surface Vessel roadmap.

Beyond the scope of Sea Trains program, it is DARPA’s intention that these technologies be transitioned into the next generation of the Navy’s USV portfolio that will adhere to strict specifications for support aspects relating to maintenance, reliability, mission payload integration, service life, communications, command and control. The final result of the Sea Trains program should be designed to observe and conform to these supportability goals for current or future USV programs of record. It is beyond the scope of this program to develop any mission payloads for MUSVs.

DARPA desires proposals that will address key design features and technical risks for the concept and culminate in an Objective System design and a demonstration of a scaled or full-scale system of vessels. Proposers have the flexibility to develop a tailored program plan that best advances the Sea Train program goals as long as the program objectives are satisfied.

Proposals must address the design of the individual vessels making up the train, including the capacity of those vessels to carry useful payloads aligned for military operations at relevant tactical speeds. Proposals must address the ability of the individual vessels to form and transit in a train configuration for long deployments and then disaggregate for operations, in varying sea state conditions. For this effort, performers should consider operations up to Sea State 5, no human interventions for the vessel operations, connection, or disconnections, and operations in communications and Global Positioning System (GPS) denied environments.

DARPA specifically discourages proposals with focus in the following areas:

a) Drag reduction technologies, such as polymer injection, air injection or hydrophobic coatings, unless directly supporting the proposers’ solution for the Sea Trains vision;

b) Energy creation, harvesting, or storage technologies;

c) Systems that require fuels other than marine diesel;

d) Evolutionary upgrades to existing technical capabilities that do not focus on Sea Trains technology areas;

e) Systems that require human intervention during the aggregation and disaggregation operation;

f) Systems requiring rendezvous with manned vessels or ports to achieve the Sea Train goals of independent long duration deployments;

g) Nuclear power or propulsion systems;

h) Systems or experimentation using live animals;

i) Interactions with humans that could result in potential injury.

B. Program Description

The Sea Train program is anticipated to be a 36-month, two-phase program. Both Phase 1 Base and a fully priced Phase 2 Option are included in this solicitation and culminate in evaluated analysis and simulations, informed by extensive scaled model or full scale in-water testing. As mentioned earlier, the program consists of two technical areas (TAs). Performer teams must propose to both TAs (TA1 and TA2) as well as Phase 1 and Phase 2 jointly within the same proposal in order to produce fully integrated conceptual designs and scaled tests. The conceptual design will be evaluated based on sub-scale or full-scale demonstrations of increasing scale and complexity. Proposals that do not respond to both TAs as well as both Phases may be deemed non-responsive. The subsections below provide detailed descriptions of each of these areas. Successful proposals will address the full set of capability metrics defined in Table 2 below.

1. Technical Area 1 – Development of an Integrated System Design

This technical area focuses on the development of technologies for a new class of long distance MUSVs capable of transporting large payloads. Performers will develop a conceptual design of an Objective System that integrates a hull form design for independent and Sea Train operations, with integrated propulsion systems, connector design and load management between the hull(s) (if applicable), and minimization of gaps between the vessels. This Objective System will be capable of independent vessel and four vessel Sea Train operations, with metrics defined in Table 2. DARPA values Sea Train concepts that allow for two, three and four vessel configurations to promote operational flexibility and system composability, with program metrics designed for the four vessel configuration. The integrated system design will consist of three focus areas:

Hull Design Hull form designs that maximize drag reductions achieved in the Sea Trains configuration and achieve a hull design that operates efficiently as disaggregated, independent vessels.

Novel control surface concepts that enhance maneuvering, seakeeping, Sea Train controls, connection, and disconnection activities in the Sea Train configuration.

Consideration should be made for enhancing maneuvering ability of the single vessel and Sea Train, to include turning circle, zigzag, spiral, crash stop and Safe Operating Envelopes.

Consideration should be made for low cost, commoditized hull designs capable of maximizing manufacturing potential at boat, yacht and ship yards.

Connector and Gap Mitigation (For connected and connectorless concepts) Approaches to physically connect multiple MUSVs in the Sea Train system, with special attention to the degrees of freedom, connector mass fraction, and structural load/moments management within the connector.

Mitigation of the drag and effects of trapped water, eddies, turbulence, and transverse flow between vessels created by hydrodynamic and propulsion flow.

Propulsion Integration Propulsion integration approaches that minimize flow drag penalties from one vessel to another while maximizing the overall efficiency of the Sea Train system.

DARPA highly values use of existing propulsion systems to reduce development costs. For testing that includes multiple vessels, vessels with and without propulsion may be justified (dependent on the coupling approach) so long as the testing can be adequately accomplished and there is a cost savings that does not compromise data quality.

2. Technical Area 2 – Development of Control System

This technical area focuses on the development of a dynamic integrated control system architecture that closes the loop between mission plans, environmental conditions, and vessel position and velocity to generate the control actuations required to sustain the Sea Train formation and maximize sea state survivability and efficiency. This architecture would be able to arbitrate competing mission, path planning, seakeeping, and efficiency goals. This controls architecture must adapt to changing operational regimes, including independent but collaborative operations, Sea Train operations in high sea state conditions, connection operations in benign and complex sea states, and disconnection operations in benign and complex sea states. DARPA envisions that performers would use an open-standard autonomous control architecture. The integrated system design will consist of three focus areas:

Controls Architecture:

A dynamic controls architecture capable of closing the loop between environmental, weather forecasting, mission, and Sea Train conditions, while arbitrating mission, path planning, seakeeping, and efficiency goals.

Consideration for real time processing to establish and share “world model” conditions between the vessels.

Kinematic intelligence, “on-line” system identification, or similar techniques that allows for the determination of Sea Train performance in the course of operating the system in changing mission, environmental, and performance conditions to continuously update dynamic system models and controls actuations.

Sensing:

Techniques that perceive the near field seaway environment for path planning and route optimization Techniques that identify the spacing and orientation of vessels within the Sea Train

(during connection, disconnection, and connected operations) Techniques that identify structural loads and moments within connectors or at contact points (for connected and connectorless concepts).

Autonomy Behaviors:

Focused autonomy behaviors that support Sea Train operations, to include connection and disconnection of vessels in complex sea state conditions, and collision regulation behaviors for the connected system.

Consideration for highly reliable autonomous connection and disconnection process in various operational and environmental conditions.

Consideration for decision algorithms that share propulsive work, fuel consumption or fuel capacity between vessels in the Sea Train to ensure each vessel has maximum fuel capacity for disaggregated operations.

For testing that includes multiple vessels, vessels with and without autonomy sensors may be justified so long as the testing can be adequately accomplished and there is a cost savings that does not compromise data quality.

3. Mission Vignette

DARPA provides a notional vignette to support concept development. Table 1 offers a notional mission profile, independent of mission payloads, to support concept development. This notional profile is intended to support the program metrics outlined in Table 2.

Mission vignette:

The Sea Train vessels independently depart a port under their own power to reach a sortie point notionally 15 nmi from the pier. The four independent vessels then begin the Sea Train mission by assembling in Sea Train configuration and completing a notional 6,500 nmi transit through varied sea state conditions that might require re-routing to optimize travel times or vessel seakeeping. The Sea Train then arrives at a disaggregation point, where the four vessels begin independent yet collaborative operations consisting of transits, loiters, and sprints in varied sea state conditions. The vessels then arrive at a sortie point to begin the aggregation process and conduct a Sea Train sprint from the operational area. The Sea Train then returns to normal transit speed for the remainder of the transit in varied sea state conditions, disaggregates outside of port and the vessels self-navigate to a pier.

Table 1: Objective System Mission Profile

4. Program Metrics

Table 2 offers program metrics to drive concept development. It is anticipated that these metrics inform the Objective System design and may be used to inform option exercise determinations at the conclusion of Phase 1.

Table 2: Objective System Performance Metrics

5. Objective System Metrics Overview

Range @ 12 knots:

o Single Vessel: Operational endurance of a single, independently deployed MUSV at 12 knots transit speed (assuming no fuel reserve).

o Four Vessel Sea Train: Operational endurance of the connected four vessel Sea

Train at 12 knots transit speed, to include at least 1,000 nmi of independent vessel operations (assuming no fuel reserve).

Range @ 16 knots:

o Single Vessel: Operational endurance of a single, independently deployed MUSV at 16 knots transit speed (assuming no fuel reserve).

o Four Vessel Sea Train: Operational endurance of the connected four vessel Sea

Train at 16 knots transit speed, to include at least 500 nmi of independent vessel operations (assuming no fuel reserve).

Sprint Speed:

o Single Vessel: Sustained high-speed operations of a single vessel to support tactical operations, collision avoidance, or weather evasion. This can be assumed to be 100% of the Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) of the installed engine set at full load displacement and trim with clean bottom in deep, calm water, or 30 knots, whichever is lower.

o Four Vessel Sea Train: Sustained high-speed operations of a connected Sea Train to support tactical operations, collision avoidance, or weather evasion. This can be assumed to be 100% of the MCR of the installed engine set at full load displacement and trim with clean bottom in deep, calm water, or 25 knots, whichever is lower.

Full Load Displacement: Weight of the ship including payload, cargo, fuel, water, stores or other items necessary for operation. This weight includes the weight of connector in connected Sea Train configuration.

Payload Size and Capacity: Capability to embark one of two configurations at one time:

Two Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEU); or, One Forty-Foot Equivalent Unit (FEU), with combined total weights listed.

Payload Fraction: Payload weight divided by the full load displacement.

Vessel Cost: Production cost of the first and 100th Sea Train vessel, to include hull, mechanical, and electrical systems, perception systems, and modifications unique to the Sea Train configuration. This cost includes the connectors.

Human Intervention: Number of accepted physical or digital interactions with a human to complete the Sea Train missions, to include the connection and disconnection processes.

This includes navigation to ordered areas, changes to the operational picture, response to dynamic environmental conditions, response to internal faults, and obstacle avoidance

(e.g. compliance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs)).

Operate at Sea State: Sea State conditions at which the individual vessel and a connected Sea Train can conduct missions. This includes the ability to aggregate and disaggregate.

The wave spectra for all cases shall be assumed to be Bretschneider.

Survive at Sea State: Sea State conditions at which the individual vessel and a connected Sea Train can maintain best speed and best handling. The wave spectra for all cases shall be assumed to be Bretschneider.

C. Program Plan and Risk Management Approach

DARPA highly desires a compressed program timeline that balances technical, programmatic, schedule, and cost risks to meet the demands of the Sea Train program metrics demonstration. DARPA challenges proposers to develop an innovative, resourceful, and aggressive program plan that allows proposers to tackle high-risk technical areas early through novel tests, computational analysis or simulation. Innovative design-test-analyze-refine-test approaches that may result in early failures by pushing the design and performance envelopes are highly encouraged if they provide leaps in technology readiness and insight or earlier completion of the program objectives. DARPA is providing minimum objectives, go/no-go criteria, and deliverables for each phase to provide proposers with the latitude to define the details and schedule for their unique programmatic approach.

The program consists of a two-phase developmental cycle with each phase building upon the maturation of the previous phase. DARPA envisions a minimum of sub-scaled testing during both Phase 1 and 2 to affordably model and collect performance data of the proposed systems.

Proposers are encouraged to develop well supported scaling and testing plans, leveraging towing and maneuvering tanks to collect controlled test data to inform analytical and simulation models.

Proposers are encouraged to select and justify an internationally recognized scaling methodology, such as those accepted by the International Tow Tank Conference (ITTC), for their proposals and demonstrate how that maps to the analysis, simulation and testing approaches in the proposal. DARPA anticipates Phase 1 testing to be a minimum of 1/16th scale, and Phase 2 to be a minimum of 1/4 scale. However, proposers are encouraged to develop a scaling and testing approach that best supports their team’s capabilities, test facility access, costs, risk, and program goals. Full scale testing will be considered with well supported risk mitigation, cost and schedule plans. DARPA anticipates that testing at the end of each phase demonstrates the ability to autonomously aggregate and disaggregate. For Phase 1, this testing may occur at scale or be accomplished with lab testing with components at full scale. For Phase 2, DARPA anticipates the four-scaled models in the train configuration will be tested in scale representative sea state conditions, unless fewer scaled vessels is sufficiently justified to demonstrate the autonomous operations. Proposed performer teams are expected to be capable of completing all aspects of both program phases, to include design, fabrication, analysis, simulation, scaled model testing, and in-water testing.

The Objective System conceptual design will be completed early in the program (during Phase 1) and will be informed by concepts of operations studies, analytical models, simulation results, and subsystem trade studies. The Objective System design should address all of the focus areas defined under TA1 and TA2. Following an Objective System conceptual design review, proposers will complete a Systems Requirement Review (SRR) for the sub-scaled Phase 1 Demonstrator System. The SRR will inform their Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) plan and associated scaled model testing, analysis and simulation events for Phase 1 to predict performance characteristics of individual vessels and Sea Train assembly, and to validate hydrodynamic and dynamic models. DARPA encourages frequent build-test-learn cycles to maintain schedule and maturation. The goals of the Phase 1 TMRR activities will focus on resistance measurements, vessel motions, Sea Train loads and moments, powering, and seakeeping studies to inform hydrodynamic and dynamic models and result in a Phase 1 Demonstration System Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Following a Test Readiness Review (TRR), the results of the scaled model testing, analysis, and simulation will inform the Demonstrator System preliminary design, and will update the Objective System conceptual design to inform the Government’s option exercise determination for Phase 2.

The end of the Phase 1 Objective System conceptual design review update informs the Phase 2 Demonstrator System SRR. The Phase 2 TMRR plan is then executed to support the fully assembled, self-powered Sea Train. The goals of the Phase 2 TMRR activities focus on powering, loads, and controls for the single vessel as well as the full Sea Train. Full Sea Train demonstrations will evaluate the control laws and autonomy behaviors to support the aggregation, disaggregation, and operations in high sea state conditions. Following a TRR, the results of the scaled model testing, analysis, and simulation will inform the Phase 2 Demonstrator System PDR, and will inform a final Objective System Conceptual Design Review update (CoDR).

The Phase 1 and 2 Demonstrator Systems are not expected to have any residual operating capability, although proposers may present such opportunities if they exist. Additionally, Government led, independent validation and verification (IV&V) assessments will be conducted by the Government team. Performers will be responsible for furnishing test plans, reports, analysis, simulation models, and hardware inspections, including participation at model tests, to the Government IV&V team.

Figure 1: Sea Train Program Plan

Proposers shall propose Phase 1 as their base program and Phase 2 as a fully priced option. The Government anticipates awarding multiple Phase 1 awards. Phase 1 results will be assessed by technical progress on the design of the Objective System, Demonstrator Systems, and assessment of military utility and Concepts of Operation (CONOPS) of the proposed designs. It is the Government’s right to determine whether or not to exercise the Phase 2 option.

Prior to the end of Phase 1, DARPA will decide whether to fund the Phase 2 option.

Program execution should include regular collaborative meetings and teleconferences to inform the Government and IV&V team of program, design, and development status. At substantial decision points, in-person Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) should be held to inform the Government of technical accomplishments and to solicit Government input regarding the balance of objectives and risk (see Section I.D. “Major Review Descriptions and Expectations” below).

Proposers should proactively identify technical and programmatic risks and resource parallel risk reduction paths over the life of the program. The minimum anticipated meeting rhythm is outlined below and may include multiple meetings on the same day.

Weekly tag-ups (teleconference), alternating between programmatic and technical focus.

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

Quarterly Progress Reviews to align program performance with Government team expectations (in-person). Half of these reviews will be held at DARPA while the other half will be held at the performer’s location in combination with other events.

Throughout the design process, an analysis of alternatives (AOA) method should be used to select configurations and hardware components. Software and subsystems should be tested to verify design margins. Subsystem designs and testing should accommodate suitable analysis variability in areas where no validated models exist. Early hardware testing is vital for later success of the aggregated Sea Train and is expected by the Government throughout the program.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide program management and contractual deliverables including required formats.

Table 3: Program Deliverable Format Format Required Format D Document SP Slide Presentation SPA Slide Presentation (Annotated) M Model EVMS EVMS or equivalent cost/schedule tool

Table 4: Program Management Deliverables for All Phases

Item # Periodic Deliverable Format Phase(s) Frequency R1 Teleconference Update D, SP 1, 2 Weekly R2 Monthly Status Report D, EVMS 1, 2 Monthly R3 Quarterly Progress Report D, SPA 1, 2 Quarterly R4 Test Reports D, SP 1, 2 30 days post test R5 Cost Model to work breakdown structure (WBS) Level 3, including Basis of Estimate to WBS Level 3

D, M 1, 2 Semi-annually

Table 5: List of Contract Deliverables Item # Deliverable Frequency 1 Systems Engineering Management Plan Within 90 days of contract award with updates at:

Design Reviews Quarterly

Progress Reviews Phase 2 Interim

Review(s)

2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Monthly 3 Configuration and program metrics Status Report Quarterly 4 Risk Management Plan updates, including mitigation status Quarterly 5 Component technology development status Quarterly 6 Software development/management plan Quarterly

Item # Deliverable Frequency 7 Data packages and presentations which will include the following:

CONOPS

Requirements Specification(s) and associated Requirements

Verification Traceability Matrix Interface Control Document(s) (ICD), including appropriate

Hardware/Software ICDs Design drawings (in Computer-aided design (CAD) format) and schematics Design data package substantiating performance estimates, including basis of analysis (e.g., empirical data, simulation codes, handbook methodologies) and methodology used

Prototype System Development Plan inclusive of component technology development status, prototype system design, and system test plan

Risk Management and Mitigation Plan Test results and analyses for all major risk reduction and component technology development activities

5 working days in advance of reviews including:

SRR/CoDR CoDR updates

PDR

Quarterly Progress Reviews

8 Test plans and procedures for major test events including, at a minimum:

Pre-test predictions, test results, and analysis for all major risk reduction activities and demonstrations All models, databases, and algorithms (algorithmic descriptions and software implementations) required to implement a fully representative 6 Degree of Freedom simulation of the performer’s system design

Document that provides the system characteristics that serve as the basis for autonomy and controls simulation and analysis

Range, range safety, and system safety documentation Mishap and anomaly investigation plan Test Trajectories and Safety Matrix Security Standard Operating Procedures (including

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), Data Protection and Operational Security (OPSEC) Plan)

Transportation, handling, and storage plans

5 working days prior to TRR

9 Raw and processed in-water testing data 30 calendar days after completion of testing

10 Quick look test reports for significant in-water demonstration of the integrated system

Daily within 24 hours

Item # Deliverable Frequency 11 Detailed photographic record of the progression of manufacturing, integration, and test activities for the in-water demonstration system

5 working days after completion of testing

12 Phase 1 final report 30 calendar days after end of Phase

13 Data Accession List that includes the inventory of technical documents generated under the program and their respective data rights

End of each Phase

14 Program Executive Summary and Final Report End of Phase 2 15 All models, databases, and algorithms (algorithmic descriptions and software implementations) required to implement a fully representative 6 Degree of Freedom simulation of the performer’s system design

End of each phase

D. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

The Government expects that a rigorous systems engineering process will be used to identify operational integrated system concepts and mature those concepts into a prototype system while identifying areas of high risk to be mitigated over the course of the program effort. Performers are expected to appropriately tailor their systems engineering processes such that they support tracking design maturation, manage risk, and document prototype system traceability to established requirements. In this context, “system” includes all components and their integration. Per Section I.C, “Program Plan and Risk Management Approach” proposals must address the system engineering processes including the approach for defining sufficient intermediate reviews to periodically assess progress toward system demonstration. The Government seeks innovative approaches to enable a lean and affordable demonstration program that features early system, subsystem, component demonstrations or tests that mitigate key risks and/or substantiate key performance characteristics.

The Performer will execute a Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction plan that includes CoDR, SRR, TRR and PDR for both Phase 1 Base and Phase 2 Option with content checklists and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program. Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation, technical risk, and demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. Sea Train system design review guidance for those aspects of the program are outlined below, followed by specific CoDR, SRR, TRR and PDR guidance. The tailored CoDR SRR, TRR, and PDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored SRR, TRR and PDR content checklists, will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

General:

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

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

Design Definition – The design of the system architecture is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy for the subject review, satisfies established requirements, and is sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition.

Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

Risk Management – Programmatic and technical risks are identified and assessed (e.g., consequence and likelihood). Mitigation plans are put in place along with associated completion criteria. Programmatic and technical risks have been updated with results of any mitigation activities.

Technology Maturation – System attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives and results have been documented.

The representative test article design is documented.

CoDR (Phase 1 Base and continues through Phase 2 Option)

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

Minimum information to be provided:

Results of AOA and trade-off studies in major Sea Train design focus areas of hull forms, connector types, and propulsion options.

Assessment of comparative resistance advantage, structural weight fraction, propulsion efficiency and arrangement, seaworthiness, connector flexibility, applicability of supporting drag reduction technologies, and comparative cost of Sea Train alternative designs.

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

Verify the resistance, hydrodynamic and connector loads, motions through modeling and simulation. Required enhancements or modifications required are identified.

Methods of development of local wave field and intra-train sensing approaches to build position and velocity models.

Development of control architecture including train alignment, train efficiency, structural loads, control solutions, and seaway survivability objective functions.

Producibility analysis related to Sea Train vessel and connectors. This study should include potential manufacturers, scalability in size and quantity, and costs. DARPA values concepts that minimize production complexity yet maximize producibility of the vessel within boat, ship, and yacht yards across the country.

Initial program schedule to include planned testing and analysis timelines and envisioned Phase 1 and 2 demonstration methodology.

SRR (Separate reviews in Phase 1 Base and Phase 2 Option) The objective of SRR is to ensure system design and development requirements are completed and documented. The performer will present the current system design status, review trade study results, and review system requirements definition. The review allows DARPA to assess the performer’s program approach and progress and provide guidance.

Minimum information to be provided:

Requirements Development – Requirements are complete and based on feasibility and reliability analysis Software Development – A software development plan and methodology (Agile encouraged), including results of verification and validation of hydrodynamic and dynamic models in comparison with model test data, is complete

Design Status – Current design status provides a feasible path to a PDR Trade Studies – The results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach are presented to include cost benefit analysis and military utility Design Support Analysis - Including projected performance capabilities against demonstration profile and data from all design disciplines to support the selected final Sea Train design

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

Updated program schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to Demonstration System (Demonstrator System) within established schedule metrics

Preliminary seaworthiness and maneuvering approach completed in consultation with the Government

TRR (Separate reviews in Phase 1 Base and Phase 2 Option) The Test Readiness Review will assess test objectives, procedures and resources testing coordination. The TRR will determine the completeness of the test procedures to be applied in the proposed system demonstration(s), as well as their compliance with previously planned test outlines and descriptions, and will be captured in test plans provided for government review.

The TRR should be conducted substantially ahead of the demonstration to allow adjustments based on Government feedback. Demonstration unit design and instrumentation for recording data associated with major performance requirements should be reviewed. Limitations of the test should be discussed and possible mitigations considered

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

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

All firmware/software is in a final review/simulation and under configuration control;

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

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

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

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

PDR (Separate reviews in Phase 1 Base and Phase 2 Option) The objective of PDR is to determine the design maturity of the selected system concept and to ensure consistency with stated Sea Train program goals. The performer will present the system preliminary design baseline with closure around documented requirements, updated program risks, and updated program cost/schedule through completion of the Sea Train program.

The review will allow DARPA to assess the feasibility of the design to complete a meaningful model basin and open water test program within program cost and schedule constraints and to provide any necessary guidance.

Minimum information to be provided:

Design Definition – Assess the design documented in subsystem requirements.

Preliminary design is complete to the subsystem/configuration item level, PDR requirements are traceable to system-level requirements, and the design closes around documented requirements and achieves Sea Train Performance Metrics.

Software Development – Analytical hydrodynamic and dynamic models are explored and results are compared and adjusted (if necessary) with model test data. All relevant environmental conditions are considered and applied for analytical predictions for the Demonstrator System.

Control systems are developed and implemented in the course of Demonstrator System tests. Aggregation and disaggregation autonomy behaviors are developed and demonstrated.

Risk Management – Risks must include all design risks.

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

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

Updated program schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to notional Objective System.

Proposals should address the process and methodology required to execute a full program, i.e. both phases, utilizing a technology trade-off investigation and a maturation and trade analysis to inform conceptual design. Proposals should also address the technical challenges associated with full-scale design and integration, including closing the stability and control loop, system analytical models, and design tools.

E. Government Management Approach and Operations

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

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

This BAA solicits proposals for Phase 1 (Base Period) and Phase 2 (Option Period) for both technical areas 1 and 2. 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.

This BAA requests a single, full proposal that includes both Phase 1 Base and Phase 2 Option. DARPA plans to award multiple Phase 1 efforts and will make a determination prior to the end of Phase 1, if any option(s) for Phase 1 performers will be exercised. .

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

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

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

B. Fundamental Research

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

‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development,…