HR001122S0027-Amendment-01.pdf

HR001122S0027

Broad Agency Announcement

LIBERTY LIFTER

TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001122S0027

April 25, 2022

Amendment 01

The purpose of this amendment is to revise Part II Section I: Funding Opportunity Description on page 6. Revisions are highlighted in the document.

The revised language is as follows:

1) Safe, long endurance operations in high sea states

a. Takeoff and land in sea states up to 4

b. Fly in ground effect in sea states up to 5

c. On-water operations in sea states up to 5

d. Persistent on-water float for up to 4-6 weeks at a time.

2) Sustained unpressurized flight out of ground effect to enable avoidance of bad weather and obstacles, flight over some landmasses, and operational flexibility

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

I. Funding Opportunity Description II. Award Information

A. General Award Information B. Proposals and Awards C. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

Funding Opportunity Title – Liberty Lifter Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001122S0027 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: March 16, 2022 o Question Submission Due Date and Time: March 30, 2022, 2pm Eastern Time o Abstract Due Date and Time: April 13, 2022, 2pm Eastern Time o Classified Submission Notification Due Date and Time: April 27, 2022 2pm

Eastern Time o Proposal Due Date and Time: May 23, 2022, 2pm, Eastern Time

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The Liberty Lifter program will design, build, and flight test an affordable, innovative, and disruptive seaplane that operates efficiently in ground effect, can sustain out of ground effect flight, and enables efficient theater-range transport of large payloads at speeds far exceeding existing sea lift platforms. This BAA seeks full proposals for Phase 1 (Phase 1A base and Phase 1B option). Phase 1A focuses on the vehicle trade space exploration and concept design activities concluding with a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR). Phase 1B continues the maturation of selected concept(s) with the expectation of substantial risk reduction testing to inform a System Requirement Review (SRR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Manufacturing Plan Review (MPR), and Test Planning Review (TPR). Through a limited competition among Phase 1B performers, a single performer/single concept may be selected to perform Phases 2 and 3 of the program.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The total budget anticipated for Phase 1A is $15M; total budget anticipated for Phase 1B is $40M.

Anticipated individual awards – Up to 2 awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or Other

Transaction.

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

HR001122S0027@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001122S0027

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001122S0027@darpa.mil

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: low cost wing in ground effect capable seaplanes. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

This BAA solicits proposals for Phase 1 (to include a Phase 1A Base and Phase 1B Option) Phase 1A Base: Conceptual Design Phase 1B Option: Preliminary Design and Risk Reduction

A future solicitation may be issued in a limited competition among Phase 1B performers to encompass the remaining two phases:

Phase 2 (Base): Detailed design, initial tooling, and long lead procurement Phase 3 (Option): Fabrication, integration, and testing of the full-scale Liberty Lifter demonstration vehicle (X-plane)

The Liberty Lifter program looks to demonstrate a leap in operational logistics capability by designing, building, and flying a long-range, low-cost X-Plane capable of seaborne strategic and tactical lift. The envisioned vehicle will have the following characteristics as primary design considerations:

Fast flexible strategic lift with large payload mass and volume Efficient flight in ground effect (IGE) extending unrefueled operations Sustained up and away flight at Mid-Altitudes (>10,000 feet) Seaplane versatility with robust surface operations Low cost design and construction philosophy

The Liberty Lifter vehicle concept seeks to introduce a new capability from existing platforms and enable revolutionary heavy lift Concept of Operations (CONOPS). Although very efficient in transporting large amounts of payload, traditional sealift is vulnerable to threats, requires functional ports, and results in long transit times. Traditional airlift is orders of magnitude faster, but is expensive with limited ability to support maritime operations. Additionally, aircraft require long prepared runways or suffer payload limitations typical of Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) or other maritime aircraft. Wing in ground effect vehicles have historically been explored with the most well-known example being the Cold War “Ekranoplans.” These vehicles were high speed (250+ knots) and runway independent, but controllability of in-ground-effect flight limited operations to calm waters (e.g., the Caspian Sea). Additionally, high-speed operation in ground effect increases the likelihood of collision in congested environments with limited options for safe maneuvers.

To address the shortcomings of existing vehicles and operational concepts, the Liberty Lifter program focuses on addressing three main challenges as follows:

1) Extended Maritime Operations

a) Operations in High Sea States

Reduce unsteady aerodynamic impacts of flight in ground effect over high sea states up to sea state (SS) 5.

High lift at low speeds to reduce wave impact loads during takeoff and landing up to SS 4.

Innovative design solutions to accommodate wave impact loads

b) Operations in High-Traffic Areas

Address vessel collision risk of high-speed operation in ground effect in congested environments and rouge wave impacts in high sea states.

c) Long duration at-sea operations Operations are intended to be sea-based for weeks at a time with long periods between land-based maintenance activities.

2) Low Cost, Full Scale Affordable Production

a) Diverge from traditional aircraft empty weight vs. cost trends

b) Material selection – Select more affordable materials vice traditional aircraft manufacturing

c) Prioritize low cost, easy to fabricate designs over exquisite, lowest weight

d) Liberty Ship style manufacture: “Buy by the ton, not by the pound”

3) Complex Flight and Sea Surface Controls

a) Complex aero/hydrodynamic interactions during takeoff/landing

b) Advanced sensors and control schemes to avoid rogue wave impacts/obstacles

The Liberty Lifter program includes performance objectives that are organized into the five main categories below:

3) Safe, long endurance operations in high sea states

a. Takeoff and land in sea states up to 4

b. Fly in ground effect in sea states up to 5

c. On-water operations in sea states up to 5

d. Persistent on-water float for up to 4-6 weeks at a time.

4) Sustained unpressurized flight out of ground effect to enable avoidance of bad weather and obstacles, flight over some landmasses, and operational flexibility

5) Operationally relevant range and endurance

a. Ferry Range > 6,500 nautical miles (Nm).

b. Operational Range (45-short ton payload) > 4,000 Nm.

6) Useful load capability

a. Nominal payload capacity ≥ 90 tons

b. On-water amphibious payload deployment and retrieval via nose and/or tail ramps

c. Cargo capacity to carry at least:

i. 2 x USMC Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)

ii. 6 x Twenty Foot Equivalent Container Units (TEUs)

7) Low vehicle manufacturing cost design and approach; to be refined as part of Phase 1.

To address the primary technical challenges and performance objectives for the program, the proposed Liberty Lifter effort should incorporate the following approach to maximize success of the program and facilitate transition to interested military service partners.

1) Design: Utilize High Performance Computing (HPC) and Multi-Disciplinary Analysis and Optimization (MDAO) tools to model and analyze complex aerodynamic and hydrodynamic interactions (Digital Engineering+)

2) Build: Focus on affordable design and manufacturing approaches

a. Intentional design choices that enable low cost fabrication

b. Novel manufacturing approaches

c. Include extra margin early to avoid later costly weight reduction efforts

3) Float: Employ best practices from commercial high-speed vessels

4) Fly: Flight demonstrate a relevant design at full-scale

a. Verification of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic interactions analysis

b. Suitability of vehicle design for high sea state operation in ground effect

The program has identified an operational need for the Liberty Lifter concept, but additional work throughout the program is required to quantify operational benefits of this novel approach and refine objectives to better meet transition partner needs. Operational analysis in Phase 1 should focus on defining performance parameters of the objective system (e.g., range, payload, etc.) as well as defining what performance characteristics of the demonstration vehicle are required to enable transition to the services following the DARPA program for extended military utility assessments.

Due to the unique nature of the Liberty Lifter vehicle, airworthiness and seaworthiness requirements must be met for a successful test sequence in Phase 3. Although airworthiness and seaworthiness certification of the full-scale aircraft will occur in Phases 2 and 3, design and test planning considerations are applicable to Phase 1 as well. Performers are expected to complete all safety/airworthiness/seaworthiness reviews and obtain appropriate certifications prior to first flight. A systematic airworthiness approach applicable to an experimental seaplane will be followed in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5030.61 (or latest applicable revision). This will require participation of the performer, the DARPA Government team, and a test range. The airworthiness process is envisioned to be based on a military flight release tailored for an experimental aircraft based on MIL-HDBK-516C. Performers are also expected to complete all safety/seaworthiness reviews prior to test. This will require participation of the performer, the DARPA Government team, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other relevant DoD agencies. The overall safety/airworthiness/seaworthiness approach may benefit from performer experience and internal processes, as applicable, so any such approaches should also be described in the proposal.

Program Plan and Risk Management Approach: The program consists of a three-phase developmental cycle with each phase building upon the maturation of the previous phase.

Proposed performer teams for Phase 1 are expected to be capable of completing Phase 1 of the program as outlined in Figure 1. Should a limited competition be conducted for Phase 2 and

Phase 3 of the program, performer teams proposed by Phase 1B performers are expected to be capable of completing Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the program as outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Nominal Program Plan

Phase 1 (to include a Phase 1A Base and Phase 1B Option) that is being solicited via this BAA is summarized as follows:

Phase 1A may include multiple performers completing multiple trade studies and conceptual design activities. High Performance Computing (HPC) resources can be made available for selected performers from the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) to facilitate extensive modeling and simulation activities early in the vehicle design cycle. DARPA has prior experience with successfully using ERDC’s HPC resources on advanced development programs with complex analytical requirements. In addition to providing computational hardware, ERDC is able to provide extensive subject matter expertise on their systems to maximize efficiency and overall benefit to the program. Phase 1A will culminate with each performer completing a CoDR which will substantiate a technical recommendation to continue to Phase 1B.

Phase 1B will be a priced option, which if exercised, will continue into preliminary design of the technology demonstration vehicle. Design optimization will be informed by continued modeling and simulation using HPC resources and component and subscale testing. This phase will include an SRR, subsystem tests at relevant scales to validate analytical predictions, control loop analyses, and modeling and simulation verification and validation. It is expected that subscale and component level testing and demonstrations will be sufficient to evaluate the configuration’s readiness and feasibility to complete the flight test program within program cost and schedule constraints. Awardees are expected to mature the configuration such that the PDR will provide the Government with confidence in the technical feasibility to complete the program. In addition, Phase 1B contains a MPR and TPR. The MPR must provide the Government with confidence in the overall approach to vehicle manufacturing, and the TPR must provide similar confidence in the comprehensive test plan approach from the PDR through completion of the flight test campaign. Results of the PDR, MPR, and TPR will be used to substantiate a recommendation to continue on to Phase 2.

The remaining two phases that may be solicited via a limited competition among Phase 1B performers are summarized as follows:

Phase 2 will focus on detailed design of the selected concept vehicle, initial tooling, and long-lead procurement. Performers will develop subsystem hardware for testing and pursue risk reduction activities to drive down the highest-risk elements in the design. Performers will be expected to demonstrate subsystem performance through simulation and component-level hardware testing. This phase will conclude with a system-level Critical Design Review (CDR).

Phase 3 will construct the flight demonstrator vehicle and conduct a ground and flight test campaign to demonstrate performance of the full system concept. The vehicle must be full-scale, and demonstrate viability of low-cost manufacturing methods and materials, but need not be fully production-representative in terms of vehicle configuration or subsystems design. It must be capable of demonstrating functionality and meeting or exceeding all program evaluation metrics under mission-representative conditions. The vehicle is expected to retain residual value at the conclusion of the DARPA program for potential transition to another Government agency for continued test and demonstration activities.

Program Execution: Program execution should include regular collaborative meetings and teleconferences to inform the Government of program design and development status. At substantial decision points, awardees should conduct in-person technical reviews to solicit Government input regarding the balance of objectives and risk. Proposers should aggressively identify technical and programmatic risks and resource parallel risk reduction paths over the life of the program. The minimum anticipated meeting rhythm is outlined below and may include multiple meetings on the same day.

Bi-weekly program management tag-ups (teleconference) Monthly Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) on specific areas of interest or substantial decisions (teleconference or in-person) Quarterly vector checks to align program performance with Government team expectations (in-person)

Throughout the design process, trade studies and/or subsystem testing should be used to select configurations and hardware components. Software and subsystems should be tested to verify design margins appropriate for the demonstrator vehicle. Subsystem designs and testing should accommodate suitable analysis variability in areas where no validated models exist.

Management Approach: Proposers should provide a description of their program and risk management approach. The management approach should include regular teleconferences with the Government to review program, design, and development details, and regular interactions with performers to discuss any relevant interface and functional design details and to coordinate relevant program schedule items. In-person reviews should be held with the Government at major program milestones to review progress against program objectives and to receive Government inputs on risk management trades. The program management approach should identify and track technical risks and establish risk mitigation approaches early and continuously throughout the program.

The overall approach for technology maturation should be described for all program phases. The management approach should describe the process for schedule management both for the performer and for any subcontractors, as well as coordination with other performers as applicable.

Major Review Descriptions: The Performer will execute a CoDR, SRR, PDR, MPR, and a TPR with content and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard (e.g., Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) guidelines available at https://dag.dau.mil and MIL-STD-1521B are suggested sources) for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program, as appropriate for the proposed effort. Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation of the technology, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements.

Specific expectations for the Liberty Lifter program are outlined below, and should be incorporated into the performer’s comprehensive list of tailored design review criteria, which will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews. 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.

General:

• Requirements Development - A complete set of interfaces, demonstration system performance, and design requirements is established at level 4 of the system hierarchy (i.e., system, segment, subsystem, and component) for the subject review. Each requirement must include verification provisions. System interfaces are identified and documented.

• Design Definition - The design of the system is established at level 4 of the system hierarchy for the subject review, satisfies established requirements, and is sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition. Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

• Risk Management – 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. The representative test article design is documented.

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

https://dag.dau.mil/

Minimum information to be provided:

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

• A pathway to SRR is identified.

• System baseline technologies for on-water operation and extended flight in ground effect are identified.

• System baseline approach to flight control loop is identified.

• Modeling and Simulation methods to verify the 3D flow field are identified, and required enhancements or modifications are also identified.

• Initial MDAO results are presented.

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

• Projected performance capabilities against demonstration profile.

• Release the final conceptual design drawing package (3-view, inboard profiles).

• Initial program schedule, to include planned testing and analysis timelines and envisioned

Phase 1B, 2, and 3 demonstration methodology.

SRR

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

Minimum information to be provided:

• Requirements Development – System (level 1) requirements and preliminary allocation of segment (level 2) and subsystem (level 3) requirements are complete. Preliminary interfaces defined.

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

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

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

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

Materials (BOM) cost that meets cost metrics.

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

• Preliminary seaworthiness and airworthiness approaches completed in consultation with the Government.

PDR

The objective of the PDR is to determine the design maturity of the selected system concept to ensure consistency with Liberty Lifter program goals. The performer will present the system preliminary design baseline with closure around documented requirements, updated program risks, and updated program cost/schedule through completion of the flight test program. The review will allow DARPA to assess the feasibility of the design to complete a meaningful flight test program within program cost and schedule constraints and provide guidance.

Minimum information to be provided:

• Requirements Development – System (level 1), segment (level 2), and subsystem (level

3) requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., analysis, integration, test, and demonstration) are identified. Interfaces are documented.

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

Preliminary design is complete to the subsystem level (level 3), closes around documented requirements, adequately demonstrates that performance achieves minimum and maximum threshold ranges, and meets size, weight, power and cost (SWaP-C) constraints.

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

• Risk Management – Risk matrix updated.

• Technology Maturation - Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within program budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept. Draft Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) for Phases 2 and 3.

• Cost – Revised bill of materials (BOM) cost based on preliminary design is documented and within established cost metrics.

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

• Updated seaworthiness and airworthiness approaches completed in consultation with the Government.

MPR

The objective of the MPR is to establish confidence in the overall approach to vehicle fabrication, integration and assembly. The performer will present the processes, materials, and suppliers required to fabricate the vehicle within the program’s cost and schedule constraints.

The performer must also demonstrate readiness to use any novel or new technologies as part of this program. Any new infrastructure or modifications to existing infrastructure required for manufacture, assembly and test of the vehicle must be identified.

Minimum information to be provided:

• Critical suppliers and materials identified with associated lead times, availability, and contracting plans.

• Identify manufacturing sites with required facility capabilities for completion of key subcomponents, critical assemblies and final assembly.

• Approach to unique transportation requirements to include physical transportation and the associated approvals required for transport.

• Detailed cost estimate for Phases 2 and 3 manufacturing.

TPR

The objective of the TPR is to review all major tests planned for Phases 2 and 3 to confidently achieve the technical readiness and necessary approvals to complete Phase 3 testing within program cost and schedule constraints. The test events should have a clear connection to the overall program risk developed throughout Phase 1 such that each test has a clear purpose and reduces program risk.

Minimum information to be provided:

• Updated TEMP for Phases 2 and 3.

• Detailed approach to achieve the necessary seaworthiness and airworthiness approvals.

• Identify primary test locations and responsible test organizations as well as backup choices if appropriate.

• Draft test plans for each major planned test activity.

Government Management Approach and Operations: The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government 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 and simulation, etc. The performers will interface with the Government teams via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level, and quarterly program management reviews. The proposers are asked to provide a management approach to allow for collaboration with the Government team to ensure a successful program.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

This BAA solicits proposals only for Phase 1A (Base Period) and Phase 1B (Option Period).

Up to two 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. Total Phase 1A funding is on the order of $15M and expected to be completed in 6 months. Total Phase 1B funding is on the order of $40M is expected to nominally take 12 months.

This BAA requests a single, full proposal that includes both Phase 1A (Base Period) and Phase 1B (Priced Option). DARPA may exercise Phase 1B options prior to the end of the Phase 1A period of performance based on Phase 1A execution and funding availability.

For Phase 1, proposals should focus on the process to bring a single configuration through CoDR, SRR, PDR, MPR, and TPR with the envisioned testing and demonstration framework to appropriately mature the configuration. Proposals are expected to identify knowledge gaps and the associated analysis and test plans to fill those gaps early in the program. While it is required that offerors propose a Phase 1B option; if substantiated within the proposal, additional options may be proposed depending on the proposed concept and envisioned demonstration plans.

DARPA requests that Phase 1 proposals include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for Phase 2 This ROM will be for planning purposes only and not be considered as part of the evaluation process. Proposers need to ensure that the Phase 1A and Phase 1B portions of their technical proposals sufficiently demonstrate foresight for successful transition to Phases 2 and 3.

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

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

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. § 4003(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this solicitation 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

B. Proposals and Awards

Proposers shall prepare full proposals in accordance with the proposal format instructions detailed under Section IV to address Phase 1 (including options) and a ROM for Phase 2..

It is anticipated that the Government will request from Phase 1B performers proposals for Phase 2 with a Phase 3 Option during the Phase 1B Option period. Submission of updated full proposals for future phases is optional and associated proposal preparation costs will not be reimbursed under Phase 1 awards.

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

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA.

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 solicitation 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.§ 4892 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.

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 solicitation. 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 solicitation 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.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

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

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. 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. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed seven (7) pages. The maximum page count excludes the cover page administrative data in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section I, and official transmittal letter but does include any figures, tables, and charts. An official transmittal letter is not required.

a) Abstract Content

Abstracts should provide a preliminary overview of a proposed Liberty Lifter solution. Areas to be addressed should include:

Top-level description of proposed vehicle Top-level description of major analytical and test activities/tasks anticipated to complete

Phase 1 Identification of major risks and/or challenges to be addressed in Phase 1 versus in follow-on Phases Relevant qualifications and experience of the proposer and potential teaming partners

(e.g. previous work in trade space, published papers, etc.)

Top-level description of the manufacturing/logistical strategy to support design, manufacturing, and testing of proposed concept Planned use of ERDC resources Top-level schedule of Phase 1 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions https://sam.gov/ http://www.darpa.mil/

2. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The 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. 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 limit for Volume I is [50] pages. There is no page limit for Volume II.

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.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001122S0027);

(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

A. Executive-level summary of technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims 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 system development through demonstration testing.

B. 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. 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. General discussion of other research in this area.

E. A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable:

(1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task 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. DARPA requires key personnel identified in the proposal to be assigned as proposed, and the resulting contract/agreement will indicate no substitution shall be made without prior approval of the Government.

Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

A. Detail the technical approach and plan for accomplishing program objectives and provide the basis for the proposed architecture, risk reduction activities (to include a risk assessment), and a software development plan. Proposals should address the proposed approach to testing to provide early risk reduction and demonstrate the ability to operate with flexibility. The proposal should: identify critical technologies and system attributes that constitute the major technical and system integration risks on the program; identify major risk reduction activities and demonstrations required to validate the ability to achieve component and system level performance goals; provide a description of key test activities for the Base and option phase including test rationale, objectives, facilities, and metrics; and an assessment of the technical maturity level at the end of the Base period.

B. Provide a management plan that describes the proposed system development processes and management approach to support successful program execution. The proposal should describe teaming arrangements as appropriate. Lessons learned from prior experience in managing efforts with this level of complexity and uncertainty should be discussed.

Provide an overview of the system development processes to be used along with the organizational responsibilities and authority for the development effort.