HR001120S0017-Amendment-01.pdf

HR001120S0017

Broad Agency Announcement

No Manning Required, Ship (NOMARS)

DARPA Tactical Technology Office

HR0011120S0017

Amendment 1

March 20, 2020

The purpose of this amendment is to make revisions to language in the following sections, which are highlighted in yellow throughout the document:

Part I. Dates, Page 4

Part IV.B.5. Submission Information, Page 41

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background and Overview B. Program Focus C. Excluded Technologies D. Program Plan and Risk Management Approach E. Program Execution F. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations G. 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 – Track A B. Evaluation Criteria – Track B C. 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 – No Manning Required, Ship (NOMARS) Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001120S0017 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates

• BAA Posting Date: February 03, 2020

• Track B Abstract Due Date and Time: February 14, 2020; 2:00PM ET

• BAA Questions Due Date: February 21, 2020; 2:00PM ET Declaration Letter Due Date and Time: April 02, 2020, 2:00PM ET

• Volume I (Technical) Due Date and Time: April 16, 2020, 2:00PM ET Volume II (Cost) and Additional Proposal Information Due Date and Time: April

30, 2020, 2:00PM ET

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The No Manning Required, Ship

(NOMARS) program will design, build, and field test an unmanned surface ship that can operate autonomously for long durations at sea with no human interventions or underway maintenance. NOMARS will challenge the traditional naval architecture paradigm by starting with a clean-sheet ship design process that eliminates design considerations associated with crew. NOMARS is a two-phased program, but this BAA seeks full proposals for Phase 1 (comprised of two tracks) only. This period will explore the NOMARS design space from Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) through Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and system definition.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The total budget for Phase 1 Track A awards is $31M including options, and the total budget for Phase 1 Track B awards is $10M.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated for both tracks.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract, cooperative agreement (Track B only), or other transaction.

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

HR001120S0017@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001120S0017

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Program Background and Overview

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

NOMARS is a two-phased program that seeks to revolutionize Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) by developing ship architectures and system designs with no anticipation of any human presence, access, operation or habitation, and developing maintenance and logistics operations to support these designs. Accordingly, innovative proposals in the following technical areas are solicited: naval architecture; naval hull, mechanical and electrical systems; self-health monitoring and predictive analytics; power generation and distribution. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

This BAA encompasses two independent tracks for NOMARS Phase 1:

Track A: Seaframe Design and Integration o Phase 1A: Conceptual Design o Phase 1B: Preliminary Design and Risk Reduction

Track B: Technology Exploration and Maturation

A future solicitation may be issued in a limited competition among Track A Phase 1B performers to encompass Phase 2:

Phase 2A: Detailed Design Phase 2B: Fabrication, Assembly, and Demonstration

The United States Navy (USN) is advancing the future concept of distributed fleet operations in which a large number of smaller combatants replaces the functionality and capability of a small number of high-value ships. Prior efforts at naval distributed lethality (e.g.

Pegasus class) were not operationally successful primarily due to their limited endurance and lack of survivability. Both issues were largely driven by the presence of a human crew.

To eliminate constraints imposed by onboard crew and expand operational capabilities, the USN has made significant investments in USV development. The Navy’s Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office (PMS 406) has developed a vision for development, procurement, and deployment of variously sized USVs. Toward this vision, the Office of Naval

Research (ONR) Sea Hunter prototype, initially developed under DARPA funding, demonstrated that executive decision-making functions (e.g., navigation of the ship), could be conducted autonomously.

At-sea endurance capabilities of current and near-term USVs remain limited. This is largely due to the frequency of maintenance activities to sustain functionality, all of which require human intervention either at-sea or in port. USV designs to date are largely based upon conventional naval architecture design principles, which assume a manned ship and include constraints and accommodations associated with the human presence. While humans are vital to perform maintenance, their presence comes with a cost. Current and planned unmanned vessels continue to incorporate considerations for humans onboard, including physical access to subsystems, ad-hoc maintenance crew quarters, environmental controls, lighting and displays, and safety equipment. Additionally, ship platforms to date have not fully explored methods to significantly reduce or eliminate at-sea maintenance tasks, as they assume presence of a human crew to perform them. Considerations for a human crew impose unnecessary limitations on USVs, preventing design exploration into new technologies and new approaches to ship architecture to optimize for platform survivability and mission profile performance.

B. Program Focus

NOMARS will challenge the current naval architecture paradigm by designing, building, and demonstrating a 100-ton class unmanned vessel with no provision or allowance for humans on or inside the ship. This will allow the NOMARS vessel to demonstrate significant performance improvements and enhanced capabilities across the design space without the constraints imposed by a human presence.

The goal of the NOMARS program is to simultaneously explore two competing objectives related to USV ship design; (1) maximization of seaframe performance when human constraints are removed and (2) achieving sufficient vessel maintenance and logistics functionality for long endurance operations with no human onboard crew. The first objective focuses on maximizing gain across a new design space, with potential considerations to include:

unusual hull forms, low freeboard, minimizing air-filled volumes, innovative materials, repurposing or eliminating ‘human space’. The second objective focuses on minimizing loss:

isolating delicate equipment from seawater, ruggedizing hardware, exploring distributed system designs, and developing architectures optimized for depot-maintenance are at play. NOMARS will disrupt conventional naval architecture designs through exploration, and therefore pave the way for more capable, affordable small warships that can be procured and maintained in large numbers.

DARPA has derived a set of performance objectives intended to guide technology development. Because traditional naval architecture designs have not explored the NOMARS trade space, design solutions are not yet known, and thus detailed specifications of performance do not exist. Instead, NOMARS will design towards performance objectives derived from a notional distributed lethality Design Reference Mission (DRM).

The NOMARS DRM describes a USV capable of theater wide operations over a 12 month deployment. In this DRM, a force comprised of numerous autonomous NOMARS vessels would be deployed from one or more depot facilities in the theater area of interest. The vessels would be expected to transit at cruise speed for at least 2000 nautical miles (nmi) of transit distance to a deployment station. On station, the vessels would be expected to maintain position for days/weeks, with occasional repositioning events at cruise speed. If needed, the vessels should be able to sprint to either evade forces or to rapidly reposition. NOMARS vessels are envisioned to conduct these operations continuously for months at sea, being refueled at-sea as necessary. When the mission is completed, NOMARS vessels would conduct a return trip (2000+ nmi) back to their depot location. The parameters associated with this DRM are used to communicate contemplated minimum objectives to aid in shaping solutions within the design trade space. Those performance objectives are listed in the table below.

Table 1: Performance Objectives

Metric Performance Objective Payload Capacity Accommodation for size, weight, power, and cooling representative of an operational mission payload (see notional specifications below) .

Sprint Speed 20 knots or greater, sustained for at least 2 hours.

Cruise Speed 10 knots or greater, continuous operations.

Transit Endurance Capable of transiting at cruise speed for at least 2000 nmi before refueling.

Station-keeping Endurance

Station-keeping of 4 knots or less of continuous operations for at least 30 days between refueling.

Sea-keeping Capable of routine operations in sea-state 5, survivable up to sea-state 7, with resilience or resistance to capsizing.

Survivability Capable of recovering from hazards.

Profile Resistant to physical interventions/tampering operations, low-observability in radar/infrared (IR)/visual spectra desired.

Replenishment Capable of at-sea refueling operations without human intervention onboard the NOMARS vessel.

Repair Depot-based (no dry-dock), economical, scalable concept for maintenance between sorties.

Sortie Endurance Capable of operating without human physical intervention at sea for 12 months between maintenance cycles.

Availability Operational availability of at least 3:1 ratio (time at sea vs.

undergoing maintenance). Vessel availability of 0.9 or better.

Cost Ship design and maintenance architecture traceable to cost reduction strategies.

Communications Data link requirements for ownship monitoring and adaptive health management should minimize required bandwidth and be tolerant to loss of communications or communication blackout periods.

It is expected that as designs mature, proposers will predict, assess, and demonstrate performance with respect to the above metrics. As part of Phase 1 trade-space exploration, regular discussions between performers and the Government team are encouraged to help explore and resolve questions about performance trades.

Seaframe Trades:

The NOMARS program intends to explore Medium USV (MUSV) design space (defined by the USN as a hull of between 12 and 50 meters) via the development of a seaframe. For the purposes of the NOMARS trade exploration, proposers should target a hull displacement in the 100-ton class, while keeping in mind the cost performance metric.

A NOMARS demonstration vessel will be expected to carry a notional payload. For Phase 1 design explorations, proposers should utilize the following notional payload specifications:

Weight: 25 tons (US) Volume: 2,800 ft.3 Power: 70 hp peak load, 15 hp nominal load Cooling: 10,000 Btu/hr

Because the NOMARS seaframe will have no provision for human occupancy or at-sea access, all NOMARS maintenance must occur between sorties, akin to aircraft maintenance practices. Thus, NOMARS will require a different approach from traditional maintenance practices used by the USN to maintain ships. Instead, through NOMARS, DARPA is interested in exploring MUSVs that would be expected to be deployed on a 12-month sortie, return to base, and then undergo a maintenance cycle. DARPA has dubbed this cycle ‘depot-based maintenance’. The NOMARS vessel should be designed accordingly.

Therefore, as part of the design space evaluation, proposers should conceive a ship design leveraging the benefits that no humans can board the ship while underway, with an associated maintenance concept that enables the vessel to be maintained via a depot-based maintenance cycle. In particular, because of the costs and limitations of dry-docks, proposers should provide options that involve dry-maintenance with components that are inherently scalable and conducive to rapid, assembly line-like operations.

Mobility and Endurance Trades:

The seaframe must be capable of high-speed sprint (20 knots or greater), while being able to efficiently cruise (10 knots or greater) and conduct station keeping (4 knots) for long durations. Additionally, while at-sea refueling will likely be required for most missions, minimizing the logistics footprint of NOMARS is of critical importance and, therefore, developing a platform that can operate for long periods between refueling evolutions is a desired metric.

DARPA encourages proposers to evaluate ship design trade space options to enable optimum performance across the defined notional metrics. DARPA believes that there are opportunities for novel hull designs that have hydrodynamic benefits but have traditionally been limited by manned vessel requirements. Proposers are encouraged to examine energy harvesting modalities to extend platform endurance, provided those techniques are compatible with the other requirements in the seaframe design trade space. Proposers are also encouraged to explore alternative fuel options for ships, with the caveat that fueling options must be compatible with at-sea refueling requirements and show a traceable path with the USN logistics infrastructure.

Proposers must develop a solution for NOMARS at-sea refueling. NOMARS vessels must accomplish the at-sea refueling activities without manned intervention aboard the NOMARS vessel (manning of the refueling vessel is assumed, manned intervention via remote control of the NOMARS vessel during the event is allowed, but physical human actions aboard the NOMARS vessel is not). Proposers must identify a path within the current USN logistics architecture, develop designs for a representative demonstration by either a USN ship or a suitable proxy, and identify any required modifications to the refueling ship to accomplish the demonstration.

Hullform Trades:

NOMARS is interested in exploring how hullform designs for MUSV class vessels can be used to military advantage when limitations and requirements associated with onboard crew limitations are removed.

Proposers should explore optimum design space choices for NOMARS to enable the ship to survive and continue the mission after encountering extreme sea-states (e.g. sea state 7+).

This exploration should include hull design and materials choices in conjunction with the removal of human occupancy, to evaluate how traditional ship design practices may be revised or ignored to create a more resilient ship. This trade space includes choices of internal layout of equipment and bracing structures, minimizing hull penetrations, minimizing or eliminating air-filled volumes (e.g. use of foam), and other such trades. Similarly, systems designed to mitigate damage (e.g. fire suppression systems) can be explored in the context of a capability unrestrained by human survival considerations.

Proposers are encouraged to explore the design space and methods to evade detection by opposing force maritime surveillance sensors, and if detected, impose challenges for weapon system targeting. NOMARS is not interested in the use of exquisite or costly materials to reduce the seaframe’s vulnerability. Rather, NOMARS wishes to explore how design of the vessel results in a ship that is inherently harder to engage due to its physical configuration. Examples of such considerations include hull shaping, minimizing free-board, or minimizing thermal signatures via hull design or component layout choices.

Reliability Trades:

A critical aspect of the NOMARS program is demonstrating that the NOMARS vessel and sub-systems can operate for a multi-month mission with no manned interventions between yearly maintenance cycles. NOMARS designs should develop subsystem architectures and evaluate their reliability across all critical ship systems, to be combined into final reliability metrics for the entire platform. Proposers are expected to evaluate system-level reliability for various designs, and identify high-risk items and methods to conduct risk-reduction testing for those systems.

NOMARS proposers are expected to address the challenge of multi-month operational endurance via a number of techniques. NOMARS proposers are expected to evaluate a range of potential solutions towards the reliability metric, with the understanding that bringing multiple techniques to play may be required to achieve the desired reliability. Proposers might, for example, investigate approaches that allow graceful degradation of subsystem elements, while still enabling the overall NOMARS ship to maintain critical mission capability. For instance replacing a small number of large engines with a multi-engine power generation architecture may be a solution to distribute power generation throughout the ship, and maintain capability with redundancy as components degrade. Alternatively, for some systems, proposers may opt to achieve the desired reliability through novel engineering of critical components. Select components may also be designed for high reliability over a single deployment, but designed to be replaced at that interval. DARPA encourages proposers to explore reliability with respect to all of the systems required to operate an autonomous, unmanned, seaframe, including the reliability of sensors that will be required for autonomous or remote navigation.

Of particular interest under the NOMARS program is the concept of a Self-Adaptive Health Monitoring (SAHM) architecture. Many applications leverage sensing systems combined with various forms of predictive algorithms to provide operators with knowledge of subsystem status and health. DARPA envisions that the NOMARS vessel will include a SAHM sensor network embedded within the ship and its subsystems to gather relevant data and monitor ownship health. The SAHM system should be capable of tasks such as: optimizing system/subsystem performance as equipment degrades; husbanding and managing resources over time; and maximizing critical mission capability of the ship before returning to port for the maintenance cycle. While humans are not onboard the ship, human ‘on-the-loop’ intervention could be used to augment the machine’s ability to diagnose and plan, via remote monitoring.

Cost Trades:

Because, through the NOMARS program, DARPA aims to create a capability that would lead to large numbers of small ships, assessment of the cost trades of the vessel are of critical importance and should be part of the Phase 1 design exploration. DARPA’s desire is that significant reductions in cost per ton compared to current USN warships can be achieved through the NOMARS program.

If produced in mass, the NOMARS design should enable lower-cost vessels. DARPA is interested in exploring design and manufacturing elements such as: component and material selection, subsystem fabrication, and ship manufacturing and integration processes, including approaches to leverage automation and rapid manufacturing technologies in all stages.

DARPA is interested in exploring how maintenance costs could be reduced if large numbers of ships are rapidly maintained in specialized NOMARS maintenance depots between sorties. Maintenance architecture scaling and adaptability should be explored in the trade space, as well as consideration of automation and assembly line practices similar to those employed in the automotive or aerospace industries. Ultimately, DARPA is interested in reducing operational lifecycle costs by exploring design trades between procurement costs and maintenance costs (e.g.

cost of hull, cost to maintain hull, and lifetime of hull).

C. Excluded Technologies

Specific technological areas that are considered out of scope with respect to this BAA are as follows:

Generation of power or propulsion via nuclear power (to include radioisotope thermoelectric generators).

“Executive Autonomy” akin to the Sea Hunter vessel such as mission planning, decision making, or autonomous navigation. Proposers should allocate sufficient size, weight and power (SWaP) for navigation sensor packages and computing resources, but should not propose work to develop new command and control solutions.

Solutions that incorporate fully submerging vehicles (e.g. unmanned underwater vehicles) are not part of this problem set, however semi-submersible solutions (air-breathing) may be considered.

D. Program Plan and Risk Management Approach

The program consists of a multi-phase developmental cycle with each phase building upon the maturation of the previous phase. The final output of the NOMARS program will be development and demonstration of a 100-ton class seagoing vessel. The final at-sea demonstration is expected to be at least 12-months of at sea operations, and include multiple at-sea refueling events and a depot-based maintenance cycle. The program plan is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Program Plan

This BAA is soliciting proposals for Phase 1 (to include a Phase 1A period and a Phase 1B period), which is comprised of two tracks – Track A and Track B – with specific program emphases.

Track A is the primary program track to design, develop, and demonstrate a NOMARS demonstration vessel. Track A proposals shall comprise of: a 9-month Phase 1A Base period culminating in a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR); a Phase 1B Option 1, 9-month priced option culminating in a Preliminary Design Review (PDR); and a Phase 1B Option 2, 3-month post-PDR priced option (options are collectively Phase 1B).

Track B will mature component or subsystem technology areas relevant to the NOMARS vision. Track B proposals should consist of a single phase effort with a period of performance not to exceed 14 months, to enable potential integration of Track B solutions into Track A designs for Phase 2A. Track B proposals are encouraged to explore technologies relevant to the NOMARS vision, including but not limited to: SAHM and failure mitigation techniques, hull materials and structures, mechanical systems, propulsion systems, power generation and management, and automated refueling techniques. Track B proposers are expected to propose a research effort sufficient to develop and demonstrate their technical solution within the 14-month period of performance.

It is expected that close collaboration between the Track A and Track B performers will be critical to the program’s success. Track B performers will be expected to present technical status at quarterly Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) with Track A performers.

Phase 1 Track A Description

Track A will execute an exploration of the design space of MUSV-class hullforms, designed from the ground-up to be optimized for the following constraints: no human occupation or habitation requirements or allowances, multi-month at-sea operations, at-sea refueling evolutions to be conducted with no manning provisions on the NOMARS MUSV, and an associated depot maintenance architecture for the MUSV between at-sea deployments.

During Phase 1A (base), performers are expected to quantitatively explore the NOMARS trade space with respect to hull design, hull, mechanical, & electrical (HME) systems, SAHM, logistics, and maintenance for a complete vessel. Performers are expected to leverage their proposed tools and techniques to construct and explore this space, to include both software and, if desired, hardware explorations. Proposals should describe the planned approach to trade space exploration and the design evolution process to assess multiple potential NOMARS designs and culminate in a CoDR, which may include multiple potential designs, at the end of the Phase 1A effort.

Phase 1B consists of two priced options, which may be exercised dependent upon performance and funding availability. In Phase 1B, performers will, based upon their Phase 1A trade space evaluations and CoDR, down-select designs for the NOMARS seaframe and subsystem architecture. Proposers are expected to develop approaches for at-sea refueling and life-cycle depot-based maintenance of the seaframe and subsystems. Ship concepts, in addition to the hull and HME components must also include traceable analysis of expected subsystem reliability, methodology to conduct at-sea refueling, methodology to conduct depot based repair, and estimates of platform build cost and maintenance costs. Phase 1B Option 1 will culminate with a PDR of the NOMARS seaframe and its logistics and maintenance architectures. Phase 1B Option 2 is a 3 month period, to include refinement of the PDR product following Government feedback and resulting in a post-PDR update within 3 months of the original PDR. The performer will review all design documentation, requirements, risk analysis and program costs and provide an updated brief to the Government reflecting these modifications and implications to a single selected design. A report documenting updates to the PDR design, in the form of an annotated briefing will be delivered. Option 2 will also include the detailed design and risk reduction development necessary to close out Phase 1 and optimize Phase 1 designs for potential progression to Phase 2. Therefore, Option 2 tasks are expected to incorporate detailed analysis, design, and risk reduction activities for key sub-systems justifying a trajectory for future CDR-level maturity.

Track A proposers are expected to demonstrate via technology maturation and risk reduction activities, readiness to proceed through Phase 2 of the program, with the capability to be the system integrator for construction of the NOMARS demonstrator vessel, conduct at-sea demonstrations, (including at-sea refueling evolutions) and demonstrate a depot maintenance cycle. The Track A deliverable table below outlines the minimum set of program deliverables.

Table 2: Deliverables

Deliverable Due date Description Kick-off meeting presentation

1 Month after award

(MAA)

Presentation that summarizes the Phase 1 plan, highlighting changes made since proposal submission and detailing the first three months of Phase 1.

Operation Security Plan (OPSEC) and Controlled

1 MAA

and for

Plans used to identify and monitor security activities during the performance of a

Unclassified Information (CUI) Mitigation Plan any change in security posture contract. Both plans are intended to be a living document that will require periodic updates throughout the life of the contract.

TIM report 2 weeks after TIM

Report or annotated briefing that summarizes findings and recommendations from Track B

TIM.

Technology Maturation Plan

(TMP)

Initial at kick-off, then updated quarterly

Document that defines the technology maturation plan. Must include current risk assessment and progress against risk waterfalls.

Trade study reports < 2 weeks after completion of trade study

Report or annotated briefing that describes the trades conducted, indicating impact and traceability to respective KPOs.

Risk reduction activity report

< 2 weeks after completion of risk reduction activity

Report or annotated briefing the describes the major risk reduction activity, outcomes, and consequences to design and development.

Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS)

Initial at kick-off, then updated quarterly

Program schedule, incorporating detailed plans.

Technical Status Teleconference

Monthly Teleconference to discuss progress over the previous month and plans for the upcoming month.

Quarterly Program Review

(QPR)

Quarterly Presentation outlining technical progress, planned future activities, and program management updates (to include cost, schedule, and personnel).

Technical and financial status report

Monthly Report that provides technical, financial, and schedule updates.

CoDR documentation 9 MAA;

CoDR data items delivered 1 week prior to review

Documentation that defines the conceptual design, as influenced by trade space assessment and trade study results. It should include feasibility analysis, technology maturation plan update (including risk assessment), Phase 2 ROM, and preliminary assessment of projected design performance against Performance Objectives and associated subsystem objective metrics.

System Requirements Review (SRR) documentation (Phase 1B)

12 MAA Documentation detailing system requirements specification (functional and performance), requirement traceability matrix, and decomposition for verification and validation roadmap.

PDR documentation (Phase 1B)

18 MAA;

PDR data items delivered 2 weeks prior to review

Documentation that details the preliminary design of the NOMARS demonstrator.

Critical system documentation should be summarized and available at the review.

Post PDR Report 21 MAA Documentation that incorporates government provided feedback, following the PDR, into the design(s).

Phase 1 final report 9 MAA or

18 MAA

as selected

Report that details all Phase 1 activities, capturing top-level results of all trade studies, design performance analyses, and demonstrator design.

Phase 1 Track B Description

The objective of Track B is to develop and mature critical enabling technologies and subsystems, central to the operation of an unmanned ship and achieving NOMARS key performance objectives. Track B efforts are envisioned to develop and demonstrate innovative unmanned surface vessel technology solutions, rather than modest incremental upgrades or improvements.

Track B performers should execute their proposed Technology Maturation Plan and mature their capability to support the goal of integration into Track A solutions at the conclusion of the Track B period of performance. Therefore, Track B efforts should be sufficiently independent of Track A Phase 1 concept development and integrated design to enable Track A assessment subject to the trade space, and streamlined Phase 2 integration if selected by a Track A. Technologies with significant consequence to conceptual seaframe configuration, or that have a waterfall effect on the design of ancillary subsystems are discouraged from Track B consideration. Phase 1 Track B maturation activities may include simulation-based testing, hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing, laboratory experiments, and/or demonstrations in representative environmental conditions.

DARPA anticipates that the content and output of these efforts may vary significantly, depending on focus area, but may include algorithms and software, models, test data, and/or hardware prototypes. DARPA strongly encourages the Track B proposers to aim to demonstrate the highest level of technical maturity possible within the period of performance.

The Track B deliverable table below outlines the minimum set of program deliverables.

Track B proposers are welcome to propose alternative periods of performance shorter than the 14 months specified if appropriate for the proposed technical approach and technology insertion concept. Deliverable due dates may be modified accordingly.

Table 3: Deliverables

Deliverable Due date Description Kick-off meeting presentation

1 MAA Presentation that summarizes the Phase 1 plan, highlighting changes made since proposal submission and detailing the first three months of Phase 1.

TIM Briefing 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 MAA

Briefing that describes technical achievements and plans, providing sufficient insight to inform Track A integration decision-making.

TMP Initial at kick-off, then updated quarterly

Document that defines the technology maturation plan. Must include current risk assessment and progress against risk waterfalls.

IMS Quarterly Integrated schedule, incorporating detailed plans.

Technical status teleconference

Monthly Teleconference to discuss progress over the previous month and plans for the upcoming month.

Test plan(s) > 2 weeks prior to start of test

Report that defines test objectives, approach, and quantitative success criteria tracing to KPO(s).

Technical and financial status report

Monthly Report that provides technical, financial, and schedule updates.

Critical Technology Deliverable

14 MAA Technical data, software, and/or hardware as applicable.

Final report 14 MAA Report that details all Phase 1 activities, capturing top-level results of all trade studies, design performance analyses, tests, and products.

Phase 2

The Phase 2 competition will only be limited to ongoing NOMARS Phase 1B prime contractors. Updated proposal guidance for Phase 2 will be provided to Phase 1B performers near completion of the Phase 1B period. Phase 2 will be split into two stages; Phase 2A and Phase 2B.

In Phase 2A, performers will develop subsystem hardware for testing and pursue risk reduction activities to drive down the highest risk elements in the design. Performers will be expected to demonstrate sub-system reliability to prove that the selected subsystems can operate sufficiently to support a 3-month at-sea demonstration. This phase will conclude with a system level Critical Design Review (CDR).

Phase 2B will be a priced option to construct and integrate a full NOMARS seaframe, conduct additional risk-reduction and validation testing and perform the final at-sea demonstration. A Test Readiness Review (TRR) will be conducted prior to the at-sea demonstration period, which will include at least one at-sea refueling event and conclude with a depot-maintenance cycle of the seaframe.

E. Program Execution

Program execution should include regular collaborative meetings and teleconferences to inform the Government of program, design, and development status. During Phase 1, quarterly TIMs will be held to allow Track B technology performers to demonstrate progress and findings useful for Track A system development performers. At substantial decision points, in-person technical reviews should be held to solicit Government input balancing objectives and risk (see Section I.F. “Major Review Descriptions and Expectations”). Proposers should aggressively identify technical and programmatic risks and resource parallel risk reduction paths over the life of the program. The minimum anticipated meeting rhythm is outlined below and may include multiple meetings on the same day.

Monthly status teleconferences to provide insight into recent activities and near-term plans, briefing relevant technical development and program management topics.

Quarterly Program Reviews to convey technical progress and overall program performance (in-person).

Throughout the design process, analysis of alternatives should be used to select configurations and hardware components. Software and subsystems should be tested to verify design margins appropriate for an experimental ship. Subsystem designs and testing should accommodate suitable analysis variability in areas where no validated models exist.

F. Major Review Descriptions and Expectations

The Performer will execute a CoDR, SRR, and PDR with content, 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 and technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. NOMARS system design review guidance for those aspects of the program are outlined below, followed by specific CoDR, SRR, and PDR guidance. The tailored CoDR SRR, and PDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored SRR and PDR content checklists, will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

General:

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

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

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

Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

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

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

The representative test article design is documented.

CoDR

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

Following CoDR, any performer for which the Track A Phase 1 B, Option 1 is exercised will then be expected to proceed to preliminary design.

Minimum information to be provided:

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

A pathway to SRR is identified.

System baseline technologies for seaframe HME are identified.

System baseline approach to health and mission autonomy is identified.

Approach to logistics (at-sea refueling) and maintenance (depot-based maintenance) is identified.

Modeling and Simulation methods to verify the hull design performance, HME reliability, and other critical factors are identified.

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

Projected performance capabilities against DRM profile.

Release the final conceptual design drawing package.

Initial program schedule through the end of Phase 2, to include planned testing and analysis timelines and envisioned Phase 2 demonstration methodology.

ROM cost estimate for Phase 2, as well as the underlying assumptions on which the cost estimate is based to aid DARPA program planning.

SRR

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

Minimum information to be provided:

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

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

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

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

Cost – Initial Phase 2 cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to a Bill of

Materials (BOM) cost that meets cost metrics of demonstrator.

Updated program schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to test program (via modeling, land-based demonstrations, and at-sea demonstrations) within established schedule metrics.

PDR

The objective of PDR is to determine the design maturity of the selected system concept to ensure consistency with NOMARS 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 program. The review will allow DARPA to assess the feasibility of the design to complete a meaningful seaframe demonstrator within program cost and schedule constraints and provide guidance.

Minimum information to be provided:

Requirements Development – Interface and requirements are complete. Initial verification statements are complete and external interfaces are documented.

Design Definition – Assess the allocated design documented in subsystem requirements.

Preliminary design is complete to the subsystem/configuration item level, PDR requirements are traceable to system-level requirements, and the design closes around documented requirements and adequately demonstrates that performance achieves demonstrator performance metrics (detailed below).

Logistics Plan – Assess the design’s proposed method of conducting at-sea refueling, including modifications required to enable demonstration from refueling vessel.

Demonstrate that the preliminary design closes around an at-sea refueling concept that is compatible with USN logistics architectures.

Maintenance Plan – Assess the design’s proposed method of conducting depot-based maintenance. Demonstrate that the preliminary design for the maintenance architecture adequately demonstrates that the design can be maintained in a cost-effective format without use of a drydock.

Software Development – A development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress is complete.

Risk Management – Risks must include all design risks.

Technology Maturation - Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within program budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept. Draft Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) for Phase 2.

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

Design costs – Demonstrate traceability to component parts that can be used to estimate final procurement costs of NOMARS based ship designs.

Operating costs – Demonstrate traceability of maintenance architecture towards estimates of operational costs of NOMARS based ship designs.

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

G. 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

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.

Given the scope and technology focus of Track A and B efforts, the Government will consider Cooperative Agreements for Track B efforts only. For Track A, the Government will negotiate either FAR-based procurement contracts or other transactions.

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.2, “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, cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein may be met by proposed efforts for fundamental research and non-fundamental research. Some proposed research may present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Based on the anticipated type of proposer (e.g., university or industry) and the nature of the solicited work, the Government expects that some awards will include restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not.