HR001122S0036-Amendment-01.pdf

HR001122S0036

Broad Agency Announcement

Glide Breaker Phase 2

Tactical Technology Office

HR001122S0036

Amendment 01

9 May 2022

The purpose of this amendment is to:

Revise the proposal due date from June 10, 2022 1700 Eastern Time, to July 08, 2022 1700 Eastern Time. Revisions are highlighted in the document.

Revise Section IV.A from “Security Classification Guide, DD 254, CUI Proposer's Day Slide Package, and SECRET Proposer's Day Slide Package” to “Security Classification Guide, DD 254, CUI Proposer's Day Slide Package, SECRET Proposer's Day Slide Package, and CUI AIT JI and Aero-Optic Data Recovery Final Report and Data”. Revisions are highlighted in the document.

Post under the BAA listing on SAM.gov the answers to all questions submitted by the BAA’s specified question submission due date (see document titled “Glide Breaker Phase 2 QA_Final”).

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background and Overview B. Management Approach and Risk Management Approach C. Major Design Review Descriptions and Expectations D. Government Management Approach and Operations:

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. Requesting Security Classification Guide, DD 254, CUI Proposer's Day Slide Package, SECRET Proposer's Day Slide Package, and CUI AIT JI and Aero-Optic Data Recovery Final Report and Data 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 Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title – Glide Breaker Phase 2 Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001122S0036 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date 14 April 2022 o Questions Due Date and Time: 29 Apr 2022 1700 Eastern Time o Proposal Due Date and Time: 08 July 2022 1700 Eastern Time

Concise description of the funding opportunity – This Glide Breaker Phase 2 funding opportunity seeks proposals to execute wind tunnel and flight testing to collect data on jet interaction effects between divert and attitude control jets and a hypersonic cross flow at conditions relevant to a future glide-phase interceptor for hypersonic threats. The results of this phase are intended to inform designs and model development to enable acquisition of an interceptor utilizing a divert-and-attitude-control-system-propelled kill vehicle (KV) in a future program of record.

Anticipated individual awards – Single award (additional awards possible pending funding availability)

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

Agency contact o Points of Contact

The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001122S0036@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001122S0036

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001122S0036@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 to execute wind tunnel and flight testing to investigate and quantify jet interaction (JI) effects on a KV for hypersonic defense. The results of this scope are expected to enable third parties to develop validated jet-interaction models and inform the design of a future operational hypersonic glide-phase interceptor kill vehicle.

Instructions for requesting the Security Classification Guide (SCG), DD 254, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Proposer’s Day Slide Package, and SECRET Proposer’s Day Slide Package are in Section IV.A of this BAA.

A. Program Background and Overview

1. Introduction

Glide Breaker intends to advance the United States’ means to counter hypersonic vehicles by enabling intercept of hypersonic threats in glide phase utilizing an interceptor launched from an Aegis MK-41 Vertical Launch System (VLS). In particular, the focus of Glide Breaker is on enabling a divert and attitude control system (DACS) propelled KV capable of intercepting hypersonic threats during glide phase. In Phase 1 of the Glide Breaker program, two DACS prototypes capable of achieving the desired performance objectives were designed and are being fabricated and demonstrated. Testing in Phase 1 includes component tests and static hot-fire demonstrations of the integrated DACS prototypes. Performance in Phase 1 of the Glide Breaker program is not a prerequisite for proposing to this BAA.

Phase 1 was a critical step, but did not address endoatmospheric effects such as controlling the KV in the presence of JI between the DACS jets and the hypersonic cross flow. JI in this regime is complex and dependent on a large number of factors. The Advanced Interceptor Technology (AIT) program in the 1990’s was one of the few projects that have gathered data in this regime.

AIT showed that JI effects are highly dependent on outer mold line geometry (including nose-cone angle), jet placement, jet geometry, jet thrust, and chemistry effects resulting from unburned propellant reacting with the crossflow. Glide Breaker Phase 2 seeks to develop the knowledge required to enable a DACS-propelled KV to intercept threats during glide phase in the presence of JI effects. If successful, the results of Phase 2 will provide the foundation for a future program of record interceptor.

2. Program Structure

Phase 2 performer(s) shall execute wind tunnel and flight testing of a Demonstration System (DS) payload to characterize and quantify the effect of JI on a DACS-propelled kill vehicle. The primary deliverable for Phase 2 is a data set from the wind tunnel and flight tests that enables validation of models and informs future design activities. To ensure the results can help enable a future program of record acquisition, Phase 2 test articles should be traceable to a viable VLS-launched Operational System (OS) KV concept, as shown in Figure 1. As such, the DS payload should have features that are traceable to the OS KV concept that allow data gathered on the DS payload to inform future OS KV design and model-development activities.

Figure 1: OS and DS Requirement’s Hierarchy and Traceability

As shown below in Figure 2, Phase 2 should begin with design of the DS. Design review milestones should include a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) at approximately 4 months, Preliminary Design Review (PDR) at approximately 12 months, and a Critical Design Review (CDR) at approximately 24 months. Each design review should include updates to the proposed OS concept based on learnings on the DS. Additionally, each design review should include analysis substantiating the traceability of the DS to the OS. However, the OS design should not be matured beyond the conceptual level included in the proposal.

Given the scarcity of JI data at relevant flight conditions and vehicle geometries, wind tunnel test campaigns should be executed prior to CDR to inform design of the DS. Proposals should include draft test conditions, test matrices, initial wind tunnel model concepts, and instrumentation packages. DARPA assesses that both cold-gas and hot-gas testing could be executed in existing wind-tunnel facilities. Cold-gas testing could enable a large number of test runs, but likely will not capture all aspects of the JI physics. Hot-gas testing could capture more aspects of the JI physics, but likely will be used for fewer test runs due to the reduced test cadence of hot-gas test facilities. If both cold-gas and hot-gas testing are proposed, performers should present a plan to develop a scaling methodology between the cold-gas and hot-gas testing.

Testing should be executed across the expected range of thrust conditions for both divert jets and attitude control jets and include combinations of divert and attitude control jets.

Figure 2: Notional Schedule

Phase 2 proposals shall include two flight tests of the DS. The objectives of the tests are to inform scaling of data collected in the wind tunnel to flight conditions and investigate JI effects that cannot be adequately tested in the wind tunnel. Possible examples of such effects include coupling between orthogonal jets, coupling between divert jets and downstream attitude control jets, and execution of the test at real flight conditions.

The first flight test shall be proposed as part of the base program and the second shall be proposed as a costed contract option. The first DS flight test should occur within 36 months of contract award and the second should be scheduled to occur within 48 months of contract award.

Proposals shall include Test Readiness Reviews (TRR) before all major test events including wind tunnel tests and flight tests. Proposals should include an initial selection of a test range, initial selection of boosters, initial concept for the flight test article, initial trajectory for the flight test, and a description of the test support activities.

Performer(s) are responsible for all aspects of delivering the wind tunnel and flight tests. This includes, but is not limited to, designing and fabricating wind tunnel models, the DS payload, boosters, etc. To meet the objectives of Phase 2, DARPA expects the performer(s) to deliver a full data package describing the design of the DS, all data resulting from the wind-tunnel and flight tests, reports from each of the wind tunnel and flight tests interpreting the data, and a final report that integrates insights gained throughout the project into a coherent narrative. Test reports should provide sufficient information on the test article design and data files to allow third-party interpretation of the test data. The final report can reference prior reports and does not need to repeat all data and information from the preceding reports.

3. Operational System

The proposed OS concept should be a multi-stage VLS-launched system with a DACS-propelled KV. Proposals should detail the entire OS concept. In particular, this should include top-level specifications for each stage of the system and provide a detailed description of the KV concept.

Additionally, proposals should justify the sufficiency of the concept to intercept hypersonic threats in glide phase. At a minimum, this should include modeling and simulation of the OS KV from the expected release conditions to intercept of realistic threat trajectories. DARPA expects this analysis will leverage classified work that has previously been completed for other Government customers. As such, DARPA expects the analysis will be submitted by proposers in a classified appendix to their proposal. Proposals should include scope to update the OS conceptual design at major milestone reviews, as needed, to reflect changes resulting from knowledge learned in the wind tunnel and flight testing of the DS design.

4. Demonstration System

To achieve the test objectives, DARPA anticipates the DS will incorporate a multi-stage sounding rocket or other low-cost booster system that boosts its payload to relevant flight test conditions. Flight test conditions should trace to the proposed OS concept. Data collected during testing of the DS payload should enable JI model validation and inform future DACS-propelled KV design activities. In particular, the flight test conditions (e.g., altitude, Mach, etc.) and test design (e.g., divert thruster locations, thrust level, propellant chemistry, periods with single thruster operations and orthogonal thruster operation, etc.) should trace directly to the proposed OS design concept. Accordingly, the payload should have sufficient instrumentation to gather the desired data on the external aerodynamics during flight. At a minimum, these should include measurements of temperature, heat flux, and pressure on the outer mold line as well as measurements of forces and moments on the payload resulting from the jets and JI.

Proposals should include a plan for how data from the DS payload will be collected. At a minimum, this should include plans for the communications architecture, an assessment of the bandwidth that will be available, what data will be live-streamed from the payload, and what data will be stored and forwarded later in the flight due to bandwidth constraints. Additionally, performers should discuss whether they will seek to recover the payload. If the payload is intended to be recoverable, proposals should discuss how the proposed trajectory will support payload recovery and what design features will be implemented to enable payload recovery.

Proposals should include plans for software and hardware-in-the-loop testing that would be executed prior to the flight test. Proposals should also include any system-specific test equipment that will be required to support integration, verification testing, and flight testing of the DS.

Additionally, proposals should include a plan to meet range safety requirements for launch.

5. Data Rights Assertions

DARPA is executing Glide Breaker Phase 2 to develop a knowledge base that could be used by multiple entities in the future. These could include, but are not limited to, organizations seeking to develop JI models and companies seeking to develop hypersonic interceptors. Therefore, DARPA places high value on maintaining flexibility to use the data for these purposes while maintaining traceability of the DS payload to a viable OS KV concept. Accordingly, proposals asserting anything less than Government Purpose Rights for the DS design, analysis, or test data should explain how the data rights assertions may impact DARPA’s ability to use the data for future efforts with commercial, FFRDC, or academic entities.

B. Management Approach and Risk Management Approach

Proposers shall 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; regular interactions with performers to discuss any relevant interface and functional design details; and coordination of 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. Reviews should include plan updates mapped to labor and material allocation projection updates based on lessons learned. The program management approach should identify and track programmatic and technical risks, including probability versus consequence matrices, 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.

Throughout the design process, analysis of alternatives and design of experiments should be used to select configurations. Hardware components and subsystems should be tested to failure to verify design margin when possible. Testing and experiments should include variations of design in areas where no validated models exist or the unit under test falls outside model validation.

Early hardware testing is vital to the success of the assembled prototype, and is expected by the Government throughout the program.

Performance beyond program objectives providing design margin is sought where no or modest additional risk is incurred.

C. Major Design Review Descriptions and Expectations

The Performer will execute appropriate program reviews. Program reviews should include a CoDR, a PDR, a CDR, and multiple TRRs 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://www.dau.edu/tools/dag 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 http://www.dau.edu/tools/dag of the design maturation of the technology, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. Specific expectations for the Glide Breaker Phase 2 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, subsystem, component, and subcomponent) 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

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

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

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

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

(BOM) cost that meets cost metrics.

PDR

• Requirements Development – Level 1-3 (see Figure 1) 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 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.

• 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.

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

CDR

• Requirements Development – Level 4 requirements are complete. Verification approach for each requirement has been established. Internal interfaces between subsystems are documented.

• Design Definition – Critical designs are complete to Level 4 and achieve compliance with all associated requirements.

• Software Development – All Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) algorithms are complete and verification and validation testing has begun.

• Cost – Final design BOM costs are documented and within cost metrics.

TRR (wind tunnel testing, free-flight testing)

The TRR verifies that the planned tests meet the Government’s expectations of the necessary demonstration, by proving accomplishment of performance requirements prior to expending limited hardware. The TRR should be conducted substantially ahead of the demonstration to allow adjustments based on Government feedback. Demonstration unit design and instrumentation for recording data associated with major performance requirements should be reviewed. Limitations of the test should be discussed and possible mitigations considered. Prior to the TRR, the performer should confirm the following criteria:

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

• All firmware/software is in final system simulation evaluation and under configuration control;

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

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

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

• The equipment, facilities, and ranges (if applicable) are evaluated as ready for test; and

• Documentation of evaluations, assessments, plans, procedures, training, and other factors applicable to the tests are available for Government review.

D. 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, testing, 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

A single award is anticipated, but multiple are possible. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

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

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

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with

Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 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

B. Proposals and Awards

Proposers shall prepare full proposals in accordance with the proposal format instructions detailed under Section IV to address this Phase 2 solicitation (including options).

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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research.

In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. Prior performance on Phase 1 of the Glide Breaker program is not required for eligibility.

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.

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

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.

3. Classified Proposals

Applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to submission.

Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the 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:

http://www.dss.mil/

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. Requesting Security Classification Guide, DD 254, CUI Proposer's Day Slide Package, SECRET Proposer's Day Slide Package, and CUI AIT JI and Aero-Optic Data Recovery Final Report and Data

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

A formal request for the Glide Breaker Security Classification Guide (SCG), a DD 254, CUI Proposer’s Day Slide Package, SECRET Proposer's Day Slide Package, and CUI AIT JI and Aero- Optic Data Recovery Final Report and Data may be e-mailed to HR001122S0036@darpa.mil.

Requests should include, at a minimum:

the organization name;

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

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

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code;

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

DARPA will provide the SCG, DD 254, CUI Proposer’s Day Slide Package, and CUI AIT JI and Aero-Optic Data Recovery Final Report and Data via encrypted e- mail or DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil), a secure on-line document sharing service approved for

CUI.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions 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. All monetary references in the proposal shall be in U.S. Dollars.

1. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. 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 47 pages, excluding the sections with no page limit. Bracketed numbers before each section denote recommended page limits.

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 (HR001122S0036);

(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;

https://safe.apps.mil/

(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. {2} 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. {3} Innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-the-art alternate approaches.

C. {2} General discussion of other research, previous work, or experience in this area that would be leveraged for the proposed scope.

D. {3} 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 tasks and 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. {15} Detailed technical approach and plan for accomplishing program objectives and to 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 future phases including test rationale, objectives, facilities, and metrics; and an assessment of the technical maturity level at the end of the Base period.

B. {10} 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. Describe the development approach to facilitate the final design and ensure that it meets program objectives. Describe how key system knowledge acquired during the program will be captured, as well as describe the use of key tracking measures to enable efficient assessment of program progress. Describe ongoing design update activities, including integration of risk reduction activities, test results, interfaces, and integration support.

Proposals should identify the team structure and plan for coordination with the system integrator as appropriate. This should include considerations for regular interchange meetings.

Describe how activities will be managed and integrated across geographically and/or organizationally separate team elements. Describe the proposed approach to subcontractor management, quality control, safety, and security. Describe the proposed level of Government interaction to facilitate efficient interactions and streamlined decision making.

Include in the management plan, the proposed programmatic approach to cost, schedule, and risk management. Although formal Earned-Value Management (EVM) is not required for the program, the proposer is expected to describe how they will provide ongoing assessment of technical and programmatic progress against the program plan, critical path, schedule and cost. Define the content of technical and financial progress reports to enable efficient program monitoring, tracking, and reporting. Program management tools should be the same tools used internally to manage the program. No additional unique information for the Government is desired or required.

C. {no page limit} Statement of Work (SOW) – In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The proposer shall employ a common work breakdown structure (WBS), or other detailed project organization structure, for numbering all activities in the SOW, IMS, and cost proposal. Major hardware and software component development and test activities shall be detailed to Level 4 or below such that there is a direct correlation between material purchases and individual items, understanding of individual test composition and cost, etc. A less detailed WBS breakdown is acceptable for level-of-effort type tasks such as program management, program control, etc. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. For each task/subtask, provide:

A general description of the objective (for each defined task/activity);

A detailed description of the approach to be taken to accomplish each defined task/activity;

Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution (prime, sub, team member, by name, etc.);

The completion criteria for each task/activity - a product, event or milestone that defines its completion;

Definition of deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities; and

Clear identification of any tasks/subtasks (to be performed by either an awardee or subawardee) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

Note: The SOW must be developed so that the Base Period and Option Period of the program are clearly delineated.

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

D. {no page limit} Include an Integrated Master Schedule in a common format (e.g., MS Project) that details all of the proposed program activities. The IMS shall detail the specific tasks to be accomplished, their interrelationships, and time sequencing. The IMS should be provided at the same or lower level of detail as the SOW.

E. {no page limit} 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.2 of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

F. {no page limit} Design Review Content and Data Package Development: Describe the content of the program review plans. Provide a complete list of the content, proposed entrance and exit criteria for each of these reviews and identify which deliverables will contain the expected content. For PDR, also identify a list of anticipated subsystems that will be addressed by this review. Describe how technology maturation and risk reduction results that occur outside of the design review cycle will be documented and delivered.

Identify how all deliverables will be initially developed and updated for subsequent reviews, including planned completion dates as captured in the IMS. Provide an overview of the capture, documentation, and design control processes and tools used for, including but not limited to, requirements management, configuration management, technical documentation and drawings, design data packages, and test reports.

G. {5} Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path to supplement information included in the summary of the proposal. This should also address mitigation of life-cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section IV.B.2.i of this BAA, “Intellectual Property.”

H. {no page limit} If an OT is proposed, provide description of milestone cost and accomplishments, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the primes and major subcontractors, total cost, and any company cost share. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.) The milestones must not include proprietary information.

I. {2} Description of Security Management architecture and/or approach for the proposed effort that demonstrates the ability to accomplish he proposed work at the appropriate…