HR001120S0040.pdf

HR001120S0040 RIDE 1

Broad Agency Announcement Rational Integrated Design of Energetics (RIDE)

Defense Sciences Office

HR001120S0040

March 11, 2020

HR001120S0040 RIDE 2

Table of Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Introduction B. Background C. Program Description/Scope D. Program Structure E. Technical Area Descriptions F. Schedule/Milestones G. Deliverables H. Other Program Objectives and Considerations

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 Requirements

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review and Selection Process C. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) B. Proposers Day

BAA Attachments:

Attachment A: ABSTRACT SUMMARY SLIDE TEMPLATE Attachment B: ABSTRACT TEMPLATE Attachment C: PROPOSAL SUMMARY SLIDE TEMPLATE Attachment D: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT VOLUME Attachment E: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE VOLUME 2 COST VOLUME Attachment F: COST PROPOSAL TEMPLATE Attachment G: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE VOLUME 3 ADMINISTRATIVE & NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS VOLUME

HR001120S0040 RIDE 3

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office (DSO)

Funding Opportunity Title: Rational Integrated Design of Energetics (RIDE)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: HR001120S0040

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): 12.910 Research and Technology Development

Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time.)

o Posting Date: March 11, 2020 o Proposers Day: March 10, 2020 o Abstract Due Date: March 25, 2020, 4:00 p.m.

o FAQ Submission Deadline: April 24, 2020, 4:00 p.m. See Section VIII.A.

o Full Proposal Due Date: May 8, 2020, 4:00 p.m.

Anticipated Individual Awards: DARPA anticipates multiple awards.

Types of Instruments that May be Awarded: Procurement contracts, cooperative agreements or other transactions

Agency contacts o Technical POC: Anne Fischer, Program Manager, DARPA/DSO o BAA Email: RIDE@darpa.mil o BAA Mailing Address:

DARPA/DSO

ATTN: HR001120S0040

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): FAQs for this solicitation may be viewed on the DARPA/DSO Opportunities Website. See Section VIII.A for further information.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?tFilter=&oFilter=2&sort=name http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?tFilter=&oFilter=2&sort=name

HR001120S0040 RIDE 4

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) constitutes as a public notice of a competitive funding opportunity as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and

35.016 as well as 2 C.F.R. § 200.203. Any resultant negotiations and/or awards will follow all laws and regulations applicable to the specific award instrument(s) available under this BAA, e.g., FAR 15.4 for procurement contracts.

A. Introduction The Defense Sciences Office (DSO) at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of technologies that speed, parallelize and systematize energetics formulation1 development. Capabilities developed for explosive and propellant formulations are of primary interest, though development may also entail capabilities for other energetics including obscurants and pyrotechnics. Specifically, DARPA seeks to develop 1) safe, semi-automated experimental capabilities that integrate energetics ingredient synthesis with formulation development and testing and 2) theoretical, experimental, and/or statistical methods that enable safe, accurate evaluation of key energetics properties at reduced scale. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in energetics research capabilities. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

B. Background Advances in automation and artificial intelligence in the chemical sciences are poised to enable fast, reproducible experimentation and efficient property optimization of molecules across many application areas relevant to national security. Recent advances pioneered in DARPA’s Make-It and Accelerated Molecular Discovery (AMD) programs, coupled with those in the broader research community, are replacing slow, labor-intensive design/test cycles with data-informed models and efficient, hands-free experimentation. Such advances have already revolutionized the discovery and production of molecular classes including pharmaceuticals; however, niche areas such as energetics, characterized by unique chemical space, limited literature precedence and specialized requirements for experimental hardware have experienced relatively slow improvement. For example, while Make-It synthetic route design algorithms provide many reasonable routes for molecules such as antibiotics and dyes, they typically fail to provide a single viable route for active small molecule ingredients in explosives and propellants. Similarly, automated small molecule production and systematized property screening capabilities that now provide efficient means to experimentally optimize functional properties in more conventional applications are not compatible with the harsh chemistry, analytical protocols or safety considerations critical to energetics development.

1 Energetics are employed as a formulation, or precise mixture of many subcomponents (i.e., ingredients) that are combined in specific ratios under customized processing conditions. Ingredients include energetic molecules (e.g., trinitrotoluene, TNT), binders (e.g., hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene), oxidizers (e.g., ammonium perchlorate), etc.

HR001120S0040 RIDE 5

Rational Integrated Design of Energetics (RIDE) seeks to overcome these and other long-standing challenges that limit development of high-performance energetics. RIDE will transform energetics research approaches and capabilities by developing safe, semi-automated, experimental capabilities that integrate energetics ingredient synthesis with formulation development and testing (Technical Area 1) and theoretical, experimental and/or statistical methods that allow safe, accurate evaluation of key energetics properties at reduced scale (Technical Area 2). Technologies developed in each technical area will be integrated by the end of the program to provide disruptive experimental capabilities that enable safe, precise, reproducible and efficient optimization of energetics formulations. With these new capabilities in hand, researchers will be able to safely and rapidly develop new high-performance energetics needed for currently fielded platforms and build new capabilities for future systems.

C. Program Description/Scope The goal of RIDE is to speed and systematize energetics research, enabling advanced development and implementation of automation and discovery tools to the energetics domain.

Technologies developed in RIDE will 1) enable safer development of energetics by applying new process control, flow synthesis and parallel formulation approaches to reduce volumes of dangerous energetic materials, 2) systematize energetics development by collecting critical property data that will ultimately inform DoD energetics design models, 3) automate components of the energetics development process to enable a design-of-experiments (DOE) approach to rapidly optimize energetics formulations in parallel with ingredients, and 4) provide new theory and experimental capabilities that significantly reduce the scale of material required to determine key energetics figures of merit.

With a focus on optimizing high-performance energetics formulations, as opposed to a more limited focus on energetics ingredients, RIDE approaches will explicitly integrate the development of ingredients with formulation DOE optimization in a single platform.

Conventional research in energetics is focused on optimizing one or two key performance metrics (e.g., density, heat of formation, sensitivity, etc.) for individual ingredients prior to integration into and development of formulations. However, developing new viable formulations (i.e., combinations of energetic molecules, binders, oxidizers, etc.) that better reflect energetics as employed in the field requires consideration of a much broader array of properties, including performance, mechanical strength, viscosity, stability, sensitivity and cost, which ultimately limit the practicality of even the most promising high-performance ingredients. RIDE will adapt the energetics optimization process to enable development of new candidate ingredients in parallel with formulations using a DOE approach. Doing so will avoid costly downstream attrition due to unforeseen issues (“fail fast”) and will also identify energetics ingredient candidates that may not feature outstanding individual performance, but are effective components of a formulation.

RIDE is a four-year program divided into three phases that will be executed through two Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs). This BAA only solicits proposals for RIDE Phases 1 and 2, the first 30 months of the 48-month program.

During Phases 1 and 2, RIDE is divided into two separate Technical Areas (TAs) focused on building core component technologies for energetics formulation development:

HR001120S0040 RIDE 6

TA1 Chemical Synthesis and Formulation Platforms: Develop safe, semi-automated, experimental capabilities that integrate energetics ingredient synthesis with formulation development and testing

TA2 Advanced Energetics Metrology: Develop new theoretical, experimental and/or statistical methods that enable safe, accurate evaluation of key energetics properties at reduced scale

Details of the technical scope for TA1 and TA2 is provided in Section E., Technical Area Descriptions. Note that, as described in Section E., proposers may propose to both TAs but must do so in two separate proposals. During the 18-month final phase of RIDE (not solicited under this BAA), capabilities relevant to TA1 and TA2 will be integrated to build a complete, semi-automated energetics synthesis and formulation development platform with advanced on-board metrology. Devices will be delivered to and operated at a cleared research facility for Phase 3 demonstrations.

D. Program Structure RIDE is a four-year program divided into three phases that will be executed through two Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs). This BAA solicits proposals for RIDE Phases 1 and 2, the first 30 months of the 48-month program. DARPA anticipates releasing a second BAA during Phase 2 to solicit proposals for the final program phase. Figure 1 provides an overview of the program schedule, including the alignment of phases, TAs, system demonstrations/capability challenges and involvement of Government teams.

Figure 1. RIDE Program Schedule.

PHASE 1 (15 months): Phase 1 is a Base period for demonstrating proposed approaches in TA1 and TA2. During this phase, performers will develop experimental capabilities relevant for explosive formulations. At the end of Phase 1, performers will demonstrate that their approaches can produce formulations with at least three relevant ingredients for on-board and off-board

HR001120S0040 RIDE 7

testing (TA1) and demonstrate the experimental viability and applicability of novel approaches for determining detonation properties without sufficient material for conventional detonation tests (TA2). Ingredients exploited in developing Phase 1 capabilities for both TAs will include those selected by RIDE performers and Government Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) teams.

PHASE 2 (15 months): During Phase 2, performers will extend their capabilities to demonstrate relevance for propellant formulations, including development and/or testing of materials with at least six different ingredients. Ingredients exploited in developing Phase 2 capabilities for both TAs will include those selected by RIDE performers and Government IV&V teams. At the end of Phase 2, DARPA anticipates that TA1 and TA2 performers will provide both component-level capabilities and stand-alone systems for propellant formulation development and testing.

PHASE 3 (18 months): Phase 3 is NOT solicited in this BAA. DARPA anticipates that Phase 3 will entail full integration of experimental components, systems, tools and approaches that address TA1 and TA2 capabilities in a single system or systems. Performers in Phase 3 will deliver an integrated, optimized semi-automated chemical synthesis and formulation development platform with on-board advanced energetics metrology capabilities. Delivery and demonstration of the device is expected to be carried out at a cleared facility. As such, DARPA anticipates Phase 3 will be restricted to performers eligible for a U.S. SECRET security clearance. DARPA anticipates that the BAA for Phase 3 will be released on or about Month 24 of the RIDE program.

TA1 and TA2 performance will be assessed independently during Phases 1 and 2. However, DARPA will continue to assess component and system compatibility across TAs, as well as novel approaches that are developed outside of RIDE, in developing plans for Phase 3.

GOVERNMENT IV&V: Government personnel will serve as technical advisors and IV&V partners throughout the program, providing DARPA an assessment of performer capabilities and also validating experimental data and/or system performance. Performers will be expected to work openly and regularly with DARPA and designated Government IV&V teams throughout the program. Performers will be required to provide details of their systems, including but not limited to engineering drawings, operating methods and instructions, software, datasets and samples to DARPA and/or any designated Government IV&V member or organization upon request. Proposals should include a task to reflect interaction with government teams and delivery of requested information, data, hardware, software and materials; the details of the work arrangement will be defined as the program proceeds. This BAA does NOT solicit Government IV&V participation. Government personnel interested in learning more about RIDE or potentially participating in IV&V activities should contact DARPA at RIDE@darpa.mil.

As noted, this BAA only solicits TA1 and TA2 proposals for RIDE Phases 1 and 2. Proposals should include a schedule, Statement of Work, and cost volume for a Base (Phase 1) and Option (Phase 2). Proposers may apply to both TAs, but must do so in two separate proposals; proposed approaches to TA1 and TA2 may not be dependent on one another. Proposals should NOT address Phase 3. Performance will be evaluated throughout the program with respect to progress towards meeting the milestones (i.e., System Demonstrations) that are indicated in Figure 1 and associated metrics defined in Table 1 (TA1) and Table 2 (TA2) below. In addition to metrics mailto:RIDE@darpa.mil

HR001120S0040 RIDE 8

provided in Table 2, proposers to TA2 should include additional metrics and milestones specific to their particular technical approach and target properties. Metrics should address quantitative targets (e.g., key energetics figures of merit, measurement rate(s), reproducibility assessment, formulation type/amount, etc.), not just qualitative objectives. In addition to providing technical justification for the proposed approach and its potential applicability to RIDE goals, proposals to TA1 and TA2 should also clearly define limitations of the methodology.

E. Technical Area Descriptions RIDE Phases1 and 2 are comprised of two independent TAs: TA1 (Chemical Synthesis and Formulation Platforms) and TA2 (Advanced Energetics Metrology). Proposers may propose to both TAs, but must do so in two separate proposals.

TA1 Chemical Synthesis and Formulation Platforms

TA1 performers will develop the core, semi-automated hardware platforms for energetics chemical synthesis and formulation development and testing. Proposals should describe a complete system that allows for systematized production, processing and testing of energetics formulations, including, for example, integration of multiple ingredients relevant for energetics formulations, on-board formulation processing via mixing, heating and cooling of materials with a wide range of properties (e.g., viscosity, vapor pressure, stability) and associated property tests.

The examples noted here are not all inclusive; proposers should clearly define their envisaged system, its capabilities to enable the RIDE goals and its limitations. Proposals should include a thorough plan for constructing and demonstrating the capability that clearly defines how the goals and metrics of RIDE will be met.

Proposed systems should accommodate a wide range of material inputs, including all standard energetics ingredients, binders, inorganic additives and plasticizers as well as relevant molecular precursors. The systems should include synthesis, purification, processing and formulation capabilities consistent with producing finished samples of formulated energetics for testing. On-board characterization and testing should be included. Automation of these capabilities is encouraged, although some manual steps are expected. Use of off-the-shelf components is advisable when available. The system is envisioned as a table-top or hood-enclosed device;

however, additional ancillary analytical systems or pumps may be included. The entire final system must be physically housed in a single laboratory room, though capabilities for remote operation of automated components are encouraged.

Proposers should not be constrained by current practice in energetics research. Unconventional equipment and/or approaches (e.g., types of reactors, mixers, test apparatuses, synthetic approaches, etc.) that offer improved process automation and safety are encouraged. DARPA is not specifying the types of equipment that must be included in the system; rather, proposers should determine what is most broadly applicable to be efficient and effective at achieving the RIDE goals to develop, process, test and validate both explosives and propellants formulations.

Proposers should specify and justify the scale and throughput at which their system will produce samples. RIDE experimental capabilities are not intended to be high-throughput screening tools;

rather, they are intended to build capabilities that enable a systematic DOE approach to high-

HR001120S0040 RIDE 9

performance energetics formulation development. To accommodate this approach, both commercial and custom components must have clearly defined operating ranges that encompass a broad design space applicable to the targets of interest. As an example, consider that while energetics formulations comprise a few ingredients with mass fractions >10%, propellants often require precise addition of additives at part-per-thousand level.

On-board synthesis capabilities are not intended for common reagents that can be easily purchased, nor for complex organic transformations that require a specialized apparatus for uncommon reaction sequences. Instead, DARPA anticipates approaches that enable common, energetics-relevant transformations on the platform that are broadly applicable and, as such, provide value for a wide range of energetics materials. Specialized chemistry may be performed off-line using traditional laboratory procedures and then transferred to the system for subsequent processing (e.g., nitration or oxidation). Proposals must include a clear description and justification of what synthetic capabilities and methods will be integrated on the system as well as what will be required/anticipated for off-line development.

Purification, processing and formulation capabilities should conform to a common workflow and include relevant analytical tools that enable robust characterization of ingredients and formulated samples. For example, if continuous crystallization is employed for purification, the system should be able to characterize and process different types of crystals. A different purification strategy might necessitate different characterization techniques. Proposed systems should strive to provide maximum experimental flexibility with a minimum number of components.

On-board testing is intended to provide rapid assessment of ingredients as they are introduced to the system as well as DOE-based assessment of formulated samples that can be tied back to ingredients and processing conditions. Some common formulation tests might include drop hammer, flame test or calorimetry. Approaches do not need to replicate standard test methods but should instead focus on developing and integrating capabilities that enable systematic and efficient data collection of key energetics formulation figures of merit. Performers must detail the tests that will be included on-board the device and provide technical justification for the method(s) and the data that will be generated. Performers are also encouraged to incorporate capabilities relevant for energetics qualification, such as the ability for accelerated lifetime studies. Systems should be able to scale and produce samples for conducting traditional testing, including detonation, offline. This can be done in many different ways, for example, running several batches of a particular formulation design to scale the amount of material produced.

It is critical that these systems integrate with modeling and testing components. For this reason experimental systems should provide the data from synthesis monitoring (e.g., NMR, IR, MS), formulation characterization (e.g., particle size, XRD, rheology) and on-board testing in a standardized format.

System demonstrations at 14 and 26 months (Figure 1 above and Table 1 below) will provide critical assessment points for DARPA and the Government IV&V teams (see section I.F. below).

Proposals should suggest ingredients on which systems will be developed, tested and validated and justify why these will demonstrate platform capability and flexibility toward developing high-performance explosives and propellants. Government teams may also provide specific

HR001120S0040 RIDE 10

material requirements during the program on which system performance will be tested and/or validated. DARPA may modify the parameters of the demonstration during the course of the program in response to either technical progress or performer requirements.

Table 1. TA1 milestones and metrics

Phase 1: Month 14 Demonstration Phase 2: Month 26 Demonstration

Produce Explosive Formulations: Automated integration of ≥3 ingredients; scale of ≥10 g per formulation System Versatility: Select between ≥9 ingredients, including inline verification of ingredient purity; <24 h between finished samples System Reproducibility: On-board sensitivity and one additional characterization test; <10% variability;

5 replicates Scalability and System Validation with Conventional Tests:

Produce ≥50 g samples for off-board tests; ≥2 tests within 20% known value

Produce Propellant Formulations: Automated integration of ≥6 ingredients; scale of ≥25 g per formulation System Versatility: Select between ≥15 ingredients, including metallic particles (5−250 µm); <24 h between finished samples System Reproducibility: On−board sensitivity and three additional characterization tests; <5% variability; 5 replicates Scalability and System Validation with Conventional Tests: Produce ≥500 g samples for off−board testing; ≥4 tests within 10% known value

TA2 Advanced Energetics Metrology

Performers in TA2 will develop new approaches to generate key energetics performance data faster, using less material (10-100x), while maintaining comparable accuracy to industry standard measurements. Approaches may rely exclusively on direct measurement of performance parameters using experimental configurations that dramatically reduce the amount of sample required, or they may develop and/or incorporate proxy measurements that are statistically demonstrated (during the course of the program) to correlate with the desired property.

Approaches may consist of multiple measurements; however, each developed method will be evaluated on its overall resource (e.g., time and material) requirements as well as its reproducibility and accuracy relative to accepted values. Computational approaches and those requiring model training will be considered as long as they can be applied successfully to unknown and novel samples. DARPA is most interested in tests that do not rely a priori on structural or composition information, but rather can directly analyze an unknown sample.

Unlike TA1, which will build operational chemical synthesis and formulation platforms primarily from cutting-edge but proven technologies, TA2 is exploratory and is anticipated to include effort dedicated to developing, testing and validating proposed strategies, as well as understanding the underlying science and theory. Proposals should carefully describe the reasoning behind the proposed approach(es), including underlying assumptions and a plan to both demonstrate the strategy and implement it for testing energetics formulations.

In Phase 1, TA2 is focused on explosive properties including critical diameter, detonation velocity and gurney energy. These three parameters can be predicted to varying degrees using current models; however, measuring them requires at least grams of material. The ability to analytically determine their values using small samples (mg or less) would not only enable rapid

HR001120S0040 RIDE 11

screening of new energetics molecules, but also provide a “snapshot” of the material that covers initiation, propagation of the shock wave and its effect on a metal target. DARPA is most interested in developing one or more effective property measurement capabilities at small scale, but encourages approaches that include capabilities for multiple properties. Proposals should clearly define the target explosive properties for the proposed methodology and detail limitations on extension across other relevant properties. Proposals should also suggest explosive formulation compositions on which systems will be developed, tested and validated and justify why these will demonstrate advanced energetics metrology capabilities. Government IV&V teams may also provide specific material requirements during the program on which system performance will be tested and/or validated.

In Phase 2, TA2 is focused on advancing tests for explosives and addressing propellant properties including burn rate and specific impulse. The complexity of propellant formulations and of deflagration processes makes current models for these parameters less reliable than those for explosives. Furthermore, current tests often use hundreds of grams of material. Approaches from Phase 1 may be modified to address propellant properties or a separate approach may be proposed. Proposals should clearly define the target propellant properties for the proposed methodology and detail limitations on extension across other relevant properties. Proposals should also suggest propellant formulation compositions on which systems will be developed, tested and validated and justify why these will demonstrate advanced energetics metrology capabilities. Government IV&V teams may also provide specific material requirements during the program on which system performance will be tested and/or validated.

Table 2: TA2 milestones and metrics

Phase 1 (Base): Month 14 Demonstration Phase 2 (Option): Month 26 Demonstration

Break Current Measurement Barrier: Determine critical diameter using sub-critical diameter quantities with ≤20% error Demonstrate Accuracy (Explosives): Determine detonation velocity and gurney energy using ≤10 g sample with ≤5% error

Discover Novel Property Correlations: Predict insensitive munition response using small scale sensitivity data with >80% accuracy Demonstrate Accuracy (Propellants): Determine specific impulse using ≤25 g and burn rate ≤5 g sample with ≤5% error

System demonstrations at 14 and 26 months (Figure 1 and Table 2, above) will provide critical assessment points for DARPA and the Government IV&V teams (see section I.F. below). Based on technical progress and partner requirements, DARPA will provide a set of known energetics material requirements on which to demonstrate the approach, both during the program and for the final demonstrations. Approaches will be evaluated relative to factors such as accuracy, reproducibility, ease of implementation, safety and the time and material savings relative to tests commonly employed by the energetics research community. Time required for sample preparation, data processing and resetting the experiment should all be considered. DARPA may modify the parameters of the demonstration during the course of the program in response to either technical progress or performer requirements.

Depending on the approach, more effort may be dedicated to developing either the experimental apparatus or to building and demonstrating models. Note that proposals must include scope for experimental validation and demonstration on novel samples, both as defined by performers as

HR001120S0040 RIDE 12

the capability matures and by Government IV&V teams. Proposals that only propose to work from existing data will not be considered.

It is critical that all TA2 methods can ultimately be integrated into experimental systems such as those developed under TA1. While the footprint of the test is not specified, it must be self-contained such that it could be readily integrated into a laboratory workflow. In addition, data produced by these tests should be available in standard, common formats (both preprocessed measurements as well as the final energetics property values).

F. Schedule/Milestones Proposers should provide a technical and programmatic strategy that conforms to the entire program schedule for Phases 1 and 2, the first 30 months of the RIDE program. Proposals should present an aggressive plan to fully address program goals, metrics, milestones and deliverables.

The task structure must be consistent across the proposed schedule, Statement of Work (SOW) and cost volume. Schedules will be synchronized across performers, as required, and monitored/revised as necessary throughout the program. A start date of November 2020 may be assumed for planning purposes.

Performers should plan for demonstrations in months 14 and 26 that meet the metrics and specifications for each TA (see section I.E. above). There will also be a comprehensive demonstration in month 30 of all work completed in Phases 1 and 2. This demonstration will target the same metrics but utilize novel energetics materials (i.e., those under development by performers or requested by Government IV&V partners).

All proposals must include the following meetings and travel in the proposed schedule and costs:

To continue integration and development between TAs, foster collaboration between teams and disseminate program developments, a two-day Principal Investigator (PI) meeting will be held approximately every six months in Arlington, VA. For budgeting purposes, plan for five two-day meetings over the course of 30 months.

Regular teleconference meetings will be scheduled with DARPA and the Government IV&V team for progress reporting as well as identification and mitigation of technical and programmatic challenges. Proposers should also anticipate at least one site visit per phase by the DARPA Program Manager and/or Government IV&V team during which performers should provide laboratory tours and demonstrations that illustrate progress toward agreed-upon milestones and metrics.

G. Deliverables Performers are expected to provide at a minimum the following deliverables, regardless of TA:

Comprehensive quarterly technical reports due within ten days of the end of the given quarter, describing progress made on the specific milestones and metrics as laid out in the

SOW.

A phase completion report submitted within 30 days of the end of each phase, summarizing the research done and progress made on the specific milestones and metrics as laid out in the SOW.

HR001120S0040 RIDE 13

Hardware and software as requested that may include engineering drawings, operating methods and instructions, software, datasets, material samples and/or entire developed experimental capabilities (e.g., operational chemical synthesis and formulation development platform and/or full experimental advanced energetics metrology system).

Other negotiated deliverables specific to the objectives of the individual efforts. These may include registered reports, experimental protocols, publications, data management plan, intermediate and final versions of software libraries, code, and APIs, including documentation and user manuals, and/or a comprehensive assemblage of design documents, models, modeling data and results, and model validation data.

Reporting as outlined in Section VI.C.

H. Other Program Objectives and Considerations

1. Collaboration

Throughout the course of the program, performers from both TAs will be required to share detailed information about their project with DARPA and the Government IV&V team. In addition, given the intended integration of components, capabilities and/or systems toward the RIDE Phase 3 goals, performers will be encouraged to share relevant details of their capabilities with other RIDE teams. Proposers should carefully review the goals for the entire program in order to fully understand the context of each program objective and TA within the overall program structure.

2. Intellectual Property A key goal of RIDE is to create tools that can be readily used by Government partners and integrated with existing experimental systems and, potentially, those being developed by other performers. This includes the ability to easily add, remove, substitute and modify software and hardware components. Therefore, DARPA anticipates that all noncommercial software (including source code), software documentation, hardware designs and documentation, experimental hardware and technical data generated by the program may be requested as deliverables to the Government with a minimum of Government Purpose Rights (GPR), as lesser rights may adversely impact the lifecycle costs of affected items, components or processes.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information DARPA anticipates multiple awards. The level of funding for individual awards made under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. Awards will be made to proposers2 whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all evaluation factors considered. See Section V for further information.

2 As used throughout this BAA, “proposer” refers to the lead organization on a submission to this BAA. The proposer is responsible for ensuring that all information required by a BAA--from all team members--is submitted in accordance with the BAA. “Awardee” refers to anyone who might receive a prime award from the Government, including recipients of procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, or Other Transactions. “Subawardee” refers to anyone who might receive a subaward from a prime awardee (e.g., subawardee, consultant, etc.).

HR001120S0040 RIDE 14

The Government reserves the right to:

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

make awards without discussions with proposers;

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

segregate portions of resulting awards into pre-priced options;

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

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

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

Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction (OT), depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, 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

HR001120S0040 RIDE 15

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

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

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

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

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 DARPA’s consideration.

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

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

HR001120S0040 RIDE 16

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

b. Government Entities

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

c. Authority and Eligibility

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

2. Foreign Participation Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances. For classified submissions, this includes mitigating any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues prior to transmitting the submission to DARPA. Additional information on these subjects can be found at https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/ctp/foci/.

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 https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/ctp/foci/

HR001120S0040 RIDE 17

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.

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.

Include any OCIs affirmations and disclosures in Attachment G Proposal Template Vol. 3- Admin and National Policy Requirements.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument (e.g., OTs under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371). Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

HR001120S0040 RIDE 18

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 Requirements

1. Ability to Support Classified Development DARPA anticipates that efforts in RIDE Phases 1 and 2 will be unclassified. As such, proposers are not required to hold or obtain security clearances prior to proposal submission. However, it is possible that some approaches and/or experimental outcomes may require classification.

Therefore, while DoD security clearances are not required for RIDE Phases 1 and 2, proposers who believe their proposed research may be classified should identify proposed personnel with current clearances (if any) as well as identify if the prime proposer has a current Facility Clearance (FCL). Additionally, proposers should describe the willingness of their company to be submitted for, and maintain eligibility for a SECRET FCL and security clearances in accordance with DoD Manual 5200.02, Procedures for the DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP), and DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. Proposers should provide their CAGE code and security point(s) of contact in their proposals.

IV. Application and Submission Information Prior to submitting a full proposal, proposers are strongly encouraged to first submit an abstract as described below. This process allows a proposer to ascertain whether the proposed concept is: (1) applicable to the RIDE BAA and (2) currently of interest. For the purposes of this BAA, applicability is defined as follows:

The proposed concept is applicable to the technical areas described herein.

The proposed concept is important to DSO’s current investment portfolio.

The proposed concept investigates an innovative approach that enables revolutionary advances, i.e., will not primarily result in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

The proposed work has not already been completed (i.e., the research element is complete but manufacturing/fabrication funds are required).

The proposer has not already received funding or a positive funding decision for the proposed concept (whether from DARPA or another Government agency).

Abstracts and full proposals that are not found to be applicable to the RIDE BAA as defined above may be deemed non-conforming3 and removed from consideration. All abstracts and full proposals must provide sufficient information to assess the validity/feasibility of their claims as well as comply with the requirements outlined herein for submission formatting, content…