HR001120S0031.pdf

HR001120S0031

Broad Agency Announcement

Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations

(DRACO)

Tactical Technology Office

May 15, 2020

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

I. Funding Opportunity Description 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 D. Other Eligibility Criteria

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Requesting Security Classification Guide, DD 254, and Classified Addendum 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 – Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations

(DRACO)

Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001120S0031 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 o Questions Due Date and Time: Friday, May 29, 2020 by Noon (1200 EDT) o Proposal Due Date and Time: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 by Noon (1200 EDT)

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The DRACO program seeks to demonstrate a nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) system on orbit. This funding opportunity is for Phase 1 of the program, which is anticipated to last 18 months and consist of two tracks. Track A will entail the baseline design of a NTP reactor, include a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) and Subsystem Requirements Review (SuRR) for the propulsion subsystem, and culminate in a Baseline Design Review (BDR) for the propulsion subsystem’s reactor. Track B will entail the design of an Operational System (OS) spacecraft concept to meet DoD mission objectives and the design of a Demonstration System (DS) spacecraft concept that is traceable to the OS but specifically focuses on demonstrating the propulsion subsystem of the OS. Track B will include a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) and a System Requirements Review (SRR) for the OS and DS and culminate in a Technology Maturation Plan Review (TMPR) for the DS.

Key objectives of the DRACO program are classified; only proposals that address the classified aspects will be eligible for funding under this announcement.

Phase 1 is expected to inform follow-on phases for detailed design, fabrication, ground testing, and on-orbit demonstration of the DS. The demonstration is anticipated to occur in calendar year 2025. Any follow on phases will be solicited by a separate announcement in the future. Follow-on phases are expected to consist of a single track for detailed design, fabrication, and demonstration on-orbit of the DS.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated for each track solicited under this BAA, based on funding availability.

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:

HR001120S0031@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001120S0031

675 North Randolph Street

Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical area(s): Cislunar Spacecraft, Space Propulsion, and/or Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. 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.

Key aspects of the DRACO program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of DRACO will be eligible for funding under this BAA.

Instructions for requesting the Security Classification Guide (SCG), DD 254, and classified addendum are in Section IV.A of this BAA.

A. Background and Overview

The space domain is essential to modern commerce, scientific discovery, and national defense. As entities around the world have increasingly sought to develop space capabilities that benefit their individual interest, the space domain is becoming congested, competitive, and complex. Maintaining U.S. interests in cislunar space will require leap-ahead propulsion technology.

Space propulsion systems in use today include electric and chemical propulsion. Electric propulsion systems have high efficiency (i.e., specific impulse) but low thrust-to-weight.

Chemical propulsion systems have comparatively low efficiency but high thrust-to-weight. The Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program intends to develop novel nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) technology. Unlike propulsion technologies in use today, NTP can achieve high thrust-to-weights similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency. The propulsive capabilities afforded by NTP will enable the U.S. to maintain its interests in cislunar space.

B. Program Approach

The DRACO program is envisioned to have three phases. In this BAA, DARPA is soliciting innovative proposals to develop NTP technology for Phase 1 of the DRACO program.

The objectives of Phase 1 are to develop the maturity of an NTP reactor to reduce risk early in the program and develop a technology maturation plan to achieve an on-orbit demo in 2025.

Phase 1 proposals will be accepted through two tracks: Track A: Baseline Reactor Design, and Track B: Operational System (OS) and Demonstration System (DS) Concept Design. The period of performance for each track is expected to be 18 months. Notional schedules for Track A and B are included in Figure 1. With the exception of the technical interchange meetings (TIMs), which will be discussed later in Section I.E., these schedules are notional only and proposers are expected to propose a realistic, executable schedule to meet the objectives described in this BAA. Multiple awards are expected for each track. If an entity chooses to propose to both tracks, independent proposals shall be submitted for each track.

Phase 1 is expected to inform Phases 2 and 3 of the DRACO program. Phases 2 and 3 are not solicited as part of this proposal. The objectives of Phase 2 are to complete detailed design of the DS, fabricate the nuclear reactor, execute a zero-power-critical test of the reactor, and acquire long-lead materials for the DS. The objectives of Phase 3 are to complete fabrication, assembly, launch, and on-orbit demonstration of the DS. During Phase 1, DARPA expects to release a separate full and open competition BAA (i.e. not limited to Phase 1 performers) to solicit proposals for Phases 2 and 3. Phases 2 and 3 are expected to consist of a single track. Phase 2 is envisioned to commence shortly after Phase 1 to minimize downtime between phases.

C. Phase 1 Track Expectations

Track A – Baseline Reactor Design

Figure 1: Notional DRACO Phase 1 Schedule (See Section I.D. below for detailed milestone descriptions)

Track A will entail a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) and Subsystem Requirements Review (SuRR) for the propulsion subsystem and culminate in a Baseline Design Review (BDR) for the reactor of the NTP propulsion subsystem. Hierarchies of Track A and Track B system levels, including the propulsion subsystem, are illustrated in Figure 2. Specific expectations for the Track A CoDR, SuRR, and BDR are provided in Section I.D. The Government expects to provide Track A performers a Government Reference Concept (GRC) for the OS and DS as Government Furnished Information (GFI) after contract award. The DS GRC is expected to provide a set of propulsion subsystem objectives to constrain Track A designs.

The baseline reactor design developed by Track A is expected to be a non-severable component of the DS propulsion subsystem. Developing the reactor design in the context of an integrated propulsion subsystem design is critical to ensuring the baseline reactor design is sufficiently mature to proceed to detailed design and fabrication for integration into a DS in prospective follow-on phases. Therefore, Track A performer teams are expected to devolve requirements from the propulsion subsystem objectives provided by the DS GRC to an overall propulsion subsystem concept documented in a CoDR. This propulsion subsystem concept must satisfy a thermodynamic cycle balance at steady-state conditions using realistic component characteristics including, but not limited to, pressure drops, sizing, and efficiencies. Sufficient bounding analysis should be performed to provide high confidence that the propulsion subsystem will be controllable through transient operation into steady-state conditions. Designs requiring excessive lead times or prolonged development efforts for non-reactor components, such as

Figure 2: Nomenclature for hierarchy of system requirements, division of responsibilities and interfaces between Track A and B turbomachinery, valves, and actuators (which are not the primary technology development focus of the DRACO program) should be avoided. From a viable propulsion subsystem concept, the requirements should be further decomposed to components of the propulsion subsystem and documented in a SuRR for the propulsion subsystem. Track A performers are expected to then use the reactor requirements and interfaces allocated in the SuRR to further mature the reactor design to a BDR level and document the design in a BDR. Specific expectations for the expected level of design maturity at BDR are described in Section I.D.

Track A should include the testing of design-representative reactor components (e.g. fuel and moderator elements) in relevant nuclear and non-nuclear environments to inform and verify margins of the baseline design. High-risk hardware components and subsystems should be tested to failure to verify design margin. Testing and experiments should include variations of design in areas where no validated models exist or the unit under test falls outside model validation. Early hardware testing is vital to later success of the assembled prototype and is expected by the Government throughout the program.

To support Phase 1, Track A, the Government expects to provide performers with high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) in the form of uranium metal. Proposals should include an estimate of HALEU required for Phase 1 test activities. Additionally, Track A performers are anticipated to require Government facilities for Phase 1 hardware component testing. Such activities should be coordinated with the Government facility to include the ability of the facility to meet the test objectives, confirmation of facility availability for the test activity, and substantiation of the costs to utilize the facility. To the greatest extent possible, DARPA encourages performers to arrange for this access or support directly with the facilities, allowing for a more flexible interaction to meet the needs of the program. If it is not practical for proposers to make these arrangements and transfer funds for work performed at these facilities themselves, then these activities should be categorized as GFE in the proposal. Statements of work for any GFE, at the same level of detail as the statements of work for the proposer’s tasks, should be included. The basis for duration and scope of any GFE access, testing or support should be clearly explained in the proposal to support the GFE costs indicated in the proposal. Track A total program costs presented in the proposal should be stated as the total contract or agreement cost plus the cost of GFE.

Track B – OS/DS Concept Development

Track B will entail the development of an OS concept that utilizes an NTP propulsion subsystem derived from missions relevant to the Department of Defense (DoD). Performance objectives based on relevant DoD-missions are provided in the classified addendum.

Additionally, Track B will involve the development of a DS design that focuses on demonstrating the propulsion subsystem of the OS. Demonstration of other OS systems, such as cryo coolers, may be traded in the DS to maintain an acceptable risk posture. Track B should include a CoDR and SRR of the OS and DS. Proposals should discuss the planned schedule for the OS and DS reviews, as well as the approach to flow down of requirements from the OS to the DS, and development of requirements specific to the DS that are not traceable to the OS.

Track B performers are expected to produce a detailed technology maturation plan (TMP) that describes the path to DS flight test and hold a Technology Maturation Plan Review (TMPR) near the end of the period of performance. The TMP should include a schedule detailed to at least Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Level 2 (i.e. subtasks) and an estimated cost profile broken out to at least WBS Level 2. Upon contract award, it is expected that Track B performers will be provided an analysis of OS objectives for missions relevant to the Department of Defense (DoD) as GFI to initialize their design activity. It is expected that Track B performers will also be provided the OS and DS GRCs for consideration. However, performers will not be required to utilize the GRCs in their design activity. Funding for Track B performers is expected to be less than $3M per performer.

Technical Interchange Meetings

The Government sees coordination between the tracks as essential to closing OS/DS designs. Therefore, Track A and B performers shall engage in a minimum of three Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM) during the course of Phase 1, as shown in Figure 1. To synchronize TIMs between Track A and B, TIM #1 is expected to be held 1 or 2 months after authorization to proceed (ATP, e.g. contract award). TIMs #2 and #3 are expected to be held at months 6 and 12 after ATP, respectively. These TIMs are intended to ensure that each track’s design activity is informed by developments on the other. Specific expectations for the TIMs are provided in Section I.E. In the event of multiple awards for each track, at least three TIMs are expected to be held between each Track A performer and each Track B performer. Therefore, after contract award, the Government anticipates that successful Track A performers and Track B performers will put appropriate agreements in place to allow inter-track collaboration throughout the execution of Phase 1. Track A performers will not be expected to collaborate with other Track A performers and Track B performers will not be expected to collaborate with other Track B performers. Therefore, no intra-track non-disclosure agreements are expected to be necessary.

Fuel Enrichment Level Requirement

On August 20, 2019, National Security Presidential Memorandum 20 (NSPM-20):

Presidential Memorandum on Launch of Spacecraft Containing Space Nuclear Systems delegated launch approval for space systems utilizing low-enriched uranium (LEU) in their reactor designs to the head of the agency (e.g. the Secretary of Defense for DoD). To take advantage of this shift in policy, the DRACO OS and DS shall utilize high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

Management Expectations

The program management approach should identify and track technical risks and establish risk mitigation approaches early and continuously throughout the program.

The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government team is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which may be augmented with Government-led Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) for targeted technical disciplines, for example, systems engineering, integration, modeling & simulation, etc. The performers are expected to interface with the Government teams via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level and quarterly program management reviews. In particular, proposers should incorporate a streamlined method to share unclassified data between the performer and Government teams to maximize collaboration opportunities.

D. Major Review Expectations

Track A and B performers should utilize recognized industry or military standards (e.g., Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) guidelines available at https://www.dau.edu/tools/dag) to guide the specific content and entrance and exit criteria for each review as appropriate for the proposed technology demonstration effort. The specific entrance and exit criteria 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. Any changes or updates to the entrance and exit criteria during phases must be provided to the Government and approved, as indicated in the deliverables table. Proposers should discuss their design review content and criteria, which will be evaluated by the Government to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. Specific expectations for the Track A and B reviews are outlined below.

General Review Expectations

• Requirements Development - A complete set of interface, demonstration system performance, and design requirements is established at the appropriate level of the system hierarchy (i.e., Level 1: System, Level 2: Subsystem, Level 3: Component, Level 4:

Subcomponent, and Level 5: Element, as seen in Figure 2) for the subject review.

• Design Definition - The design of the system is established at the appropriate level of the system hierarchy for the subject review, satisfies established requirements, and is https://www.dau.edu/tools/dag sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition. Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

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

• Technology Maturation – System/hardware/software attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives have been documented.

Track A Review Descriptions and Expectations

Propulsion CoDR

• Requirements Development – Subsystem (Level 2) requirements derived from the OS and DS GRC objectives should be defined and component (Level 3) reactor size, weight, power, and functions should be defined. Layout of the reactor core (Level 4) should be established and core materials (Level 5) should be identified. Traceability to the OS and DS GRCs is documented and reviewed at the DS CoDR.

• Conceptual Design – Conceptual design is completed and approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. Appropriate analysis is completed to show the configuration can manage startup, shutdown, and throttling transients. Required component and flowpath characteristics to achieve proposed performance metrics are shown to be achievable. Non-reactor component sizing, materials selection, manufacturability, and performance expectations fall within the present industrial experience base. A pathway to the SuRR is identified.

• Trade Studies – Trade studies completed to balance performance, risk, cost, and schedule.

• Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics.

Propulsion SuRR

• Requirements Development –Requirements and preliminary interfaces for components

(Level 3) below the propulsion subsystem (Level 2) are defined. Preliminary interfaces for propulsion components are defined. Requirements and interfaces for subcomponents (Level 4) below the reactor component (Level 3) are defined.

• Conceptual Design – Technology conceptual design is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through assessments such as parametric analysis. A pathway to the baseline design is identified.

• Trade Studies – Results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach.

• Risk Management – Risks are identified and plans to handle risks are documented.

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

(BOM) and non-recurring engineering costs that meets cost metrics.

Reactor BDR

• Requirements Development – Component (Level 3 Reactor) requirements and interfaces below Level 2 (Propulsion Subsystem) of the propulsion subsystem are defined. For the reactor component (Level 3), requirements are decomposed and interfaces are defined for subcomponents (Level 4) and elements (Level 5) where decomposition to that level is applicable. All Level 3 and 4 requirements developed by Track A performers have initial verification methods (e.g., Analysis, Inspection, Test, and/or Demonstration) identified.

• Design Definition – Allocated design is assessed to adequately achieve performance objectives and meet size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) constraints.

• Software Development – Development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress.

• Risk Management – Risks are identified and plans to handle risks are documented.

• Technology Maturation – Testing of design representative reactor subcomponents in relevant environments has demonstrated design feasibility and acceptable design margin.

Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within a reasonable budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept.

• Cost – Revised Bill of Materials (BOM) and non-recurring engineering costs based on baseline design is documented and within established cost metrics.

Track B Reviews Descriptions and Expectations

OS CoDR

• Requirements Development – Top level system requirements and subsystem size, weight, power, materials, and functions are defined.

• Conceptual Design – Technology conceptual design is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through assessments such as parametric analysis. Pathways to the OS SRR and DS CoDR are identified.

• Trade Studies – Trade studies completed to balance performance, risk, cost, and schedule.

• Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics.

DS CoDR

• Requirements Development – Top level system requirements and subsystem size, weight, power, materials, and functions are defined. Traceability to the OS is documented.

• Conceptual Design – Technology conceptual design is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through assessments such as parametric analysis. A pathway to the SRR is identified.

• Trade Studies – Trade studies completed to balance performance, risk, cost, and schedule.

• Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics.

OS SRR

• Requirements Development – System (Level 1) and subsystem (Level 2) requirements, and preliminary allocation of component (Level 3) requirements are complete.

Preliminary interfaces defined.

• Conceptual Design – Conceptual design is completed and approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. Pathway to the DS SRR is identified.

• Software Development – Software development plan including verification and validation approach.

• Risk Management – Risks are identified and plans to handle risks are documented.

• Trade Studies – Results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach.

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

(BOM) and non-recurring engineering costs that meets cost metrics.

DS SRR

• Requirements Development – System (Level 1) and subsystem (Level 2) requirements and preliminary allocation of component (Level 3) requirements are complete.

Preliminary interfaces defined. Traceability of requirements to the OS and rationale for deviating from particular OS requirements for the DS are documented.

• Conceptual Design – Conceptual design is completed and approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. A pathway to the preliminary design is identified.

• Software Development – Software development plan including verification and validation approach.

• Risk Management – Risks are identified and plans to handle risks are documented.

• Trade Studies – Results of trade studies completed to validate design approach.

• Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to BOM and non-recurring engineering costs that meets cost metrics.

• Technology Maturation Plan – Plan and schedule for the path to the DS flight test is developed to at least a Work Breakdown Schedule Level 1. Cost estimates for the tasks in the plan have been developed.

DS Technology Maturation Plan Review (TMPR)

• Plan – Detailed TMP that describes the path to DS flight test is complete.

• Schedule – The TMP should include a schedule detailed to at least Work Breakdown

Structure Level 2.

• Cost – The TMP should include an estimated cost profile broken out to at least Level 2 of the associated schedule tasks.

E. Technical Interchange Meeting Expectations

Coordination between Tracks A and B will be essential to a smooth transition from the split track approach in Phase 1 to a more conventional prime contractor, subcontractor approach in a prospective follow-on phase. During Phase 1, Track A performers are expected to host three TIMs with each Track B performer at a Track A performer facility. During each TIM, track performers should focus on informing the performer from the other track on the current state of their design. Results of design trades, analyses, modeling, and experiments that informed the design should also be presented. In addition, TIMs should include coordination of interfaces between the Track A and B designs to ensure smooth integration of the Track A design into a Track B DS in a prospective follow-on phase. This is expected to require coordination beyond what can be accomplished at TIMs alone. Therefore, coordination between tracks is expected to continue between TIMs at a working level. The following describes specific expectations for each TIM:

TIM #1

• Objective – Informational meeting to begin coordination on respective track designs, interfaces between the designs, and initiate working level relationships amongst personnel from each track

• Products Presented – Details of design proposed by each track including detailed discussion of propulsion performance requirements and interfaces. For example, performers should present expected propulsion system SWAP, estimates for how the propulsion system will perform (e.g. thrust and mass flow rates of propellant), packaging information, and interface requirements between the Track A propulsion subsystem and Track B spacecraft designs.

• Timeframe – 1 or 2 months after ATP

• Nominal Meeting Duration: 1 day

TIM #2

• Objective – Communicate each track’s completed CoDR design and coordinate propulsion subsystem requirements and interfaces to inform design activities leading into SuRR for Track A as well as OS and DS SRRs for Track B. Track A may use these coordination activities to refine the propulsion subsystem objectives and interfaces provided by the DS GRC to devolve requirements for the SuRR.

• Products Presented – CoDR designs previously presented to the Government at the performers’ CoDR events. For example, Track B performers should share the limitations in the control capabilities of the on-board computer of the spacecraft, expected communications and telemetry processes between ground control and the propulsion system, and the expected instrumentation that will be provided to the spacecraft system for propulsion system telemetry. The Track A performer should provide dynamic (e.g.

over a duration of time, including start-up, full power, shut-down, and transient) propulsion performance predictions to Track B in order to properly quantify performance of the system as a function of time.

• Timeframe – 6 months after ATP

• Nominal Meeting Duration: 2 days

TIM #3

• Objective – Communicate completed Track A’s SuRR design and Track B’s OS and DS

SRR designs and reconcile propulsion subsystem requirements and interfaces. It is understood that Track A and B designs are not directly coupled. Therefore, Track A and B designs should demonstrate a feasible path to align with the agreed upon propulsion subsystem requirements and interfaces, but need not demonstrate strict adherence.

• Products Presented – Track A SuRR and Track B DS SRR designs previously presented to the Government at the performers’ review events. The products presented should contain sufficient detail to reconcile the results of Track A and Track B into a consolidated spacecraft.

• Timeframe – 12 months after ATP

• Nominal Meeting Duration: 3 days

II. Award Information A. General Award Information

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

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

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.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 an 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research. In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA, such as all United States Enterprises to Include:

Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

Accredited degree granting colleges and universities Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations

Additionally:

1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government Entities

a) FFRDCs FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

All proposers are expected to address transition; transition is part of the evaluation criteria in Section V.A. However, given their special status, FFRDCs should describe how and when a proposed technology/system will transition to which Non-FFRDC organization(s).

b) Government Entities Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government Entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

c) Authority and Eligibility

At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and Government Entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

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

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

3. Classified Proposals

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

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

FAR 9.505-4.

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

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

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

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

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

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

http://www.dcsa.mil/

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

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

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

In addition to the security requirements stated in Section I.B, Track A and B proposers shall be International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliant and have appropriate personnel clearances and facilities for processing and storing at least SECRET level information to propose to this BAA and execute the DRACO program. Track B performers are desired to have personnel and facilities to operate at higher classification levels. Further details are provided in the Classified Addendum.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Requesting Security Classification Guide, DD 254, and Classified Addendum

This announcement with its classified addendum, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at https://beta.sam.gov/ or www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

A formal request for the DRACO Security Classification Guide (SCG), a DD 254, and the BAA Classified Addendum may be e-mailed to HR001120S0031@darpa.mil. Requests should include, at a minimum:

the organization name;

technical point of contact (POC) name, phone number, and e-mail address;

Facility Security Officer (FSO) name, phone number, and e-mail address;

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code;

statement of facility clearance and safeguarding capability and http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions https://beta.sam.gov/ http://www.darpa.mil/ mailto:HR001120SXXXX@darpa.mil a valid address for receiving classified material at the SECRET level via express mail.

DARPA will provide the SCG and DD 254 via encrypted e-mail or DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil), a secure on-line document sharing service approved for U//FOUO information.

The BAA Classified Addendum will be sent via express mail. DARPA will verify the facility clearance and the clearance of the recipient before mailing the classified material. If the classified mailing address is not authorized for express mail, this should be indicated in the request and the addendum package will be sent via registered mail. Further handling instructions will accompany the classified addendum.

Proposers should allow at least five (5) business days for processing requests for the classified addendum plus time for delivery.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. All hard copies must be on 8½ inch by 11 inch paper with 1” margins. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

1. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. The proposal shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page (where a page is 8-1/2 by 11 inches, margins not smaller than 1 inch, and line spacing not smaller than single-spaced). Fold-outs up to 11 by 17 inches may be used, but will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of three parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page lengths for each section are shown in brackets [ ] below;

pages beyond this limit may not be read or considered for review. The recommended page lengths for each sub-section are shown in braces { } below; proposers may adjust the number of sub-section pages as they see necessary as long as the number of pages for the overall section remains under the maximum indicated in brackets [ ]. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 70 pages.

Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and managerial issues. Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to

DARPA.

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

https://safe.apps.mil/

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative [2]

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001120S0031);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

BUSINESS,” “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” “OTHER SMALL

BUSINESS,” “HBCU,” “MI,” “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” OR “OTHER

NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

Section II: Summary of Proposal [12]

A. {2} Overview of technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals and deliverable creation. (In the proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III of the Technical and Management Proposal.) The summary should also include a top-level schedule that outlines the proposer’s overall approach to executing proposed scope through the completion of Phase 1.

B. {3} Innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

C. {2} Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization.

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

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

Proposers responding to this BAA must submit a separate list of all technical data or computer software that will be furnished to the Government with other than unlimited rights. The Government will assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property restrictions in their proposals. Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.3.i of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

D. {2} General discussion of other research in this area.

E. {3} A clearly defined organization chart for the program team members which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team members; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year.