HR001122S0038.pdf

HR001122S0038

Broad Agency Announcement H6

Microsystems Technology Office

May 17, 2022

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background B. Program Description C. Program Structure D. Technical Areas E. Schedule/Milestones F. Deliverables G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information H. Intellectual Property

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

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

2. Other Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching D. Other Eligibility Criteria

1. Collaborative Efforts IV. Application and Submission Information

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

1. Abstract Format

2. Full Proposal Format

3. Proprietary Information

4. Security Information

a. Program Security Information

b. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

i. CUI Proposal Markings

ii. CUI Submission Requirements

c. Unclassified Submissions

5. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information Controls

6. Human Subjects Research (HSR)/Animal Use

7. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

8. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 749d)/FAR 39.2

9. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

10. Intellectual Property

a. For Procurement Contracts

b. For All Non-Procurement Contracts

11. Patents

12. System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements

13. Funding Restrictions

C. Submission Information

1. Submission Dates and Times

a. Abstract Due Date

b. Full Proposal Date

c. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

2. Abstract Submission Information

3. Proposal Submission Information

a. For Proposers Requesting Cooperative Agreements:

b. For Proposers Requesting Technology Investment Agreements

c. For Proposers Requesting Contracts or Other Transaction Agreements

4. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

3. Cost Realism

B. Review and Selection Process

1. Review Process

2. Handling of Source Selection Information

3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

4. Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP)

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices

1. Abstracts

2. Proposals

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. Solicitation Provisions and Award Clauses, Terms and Conditions

3. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Controlled Technical Information

(CTI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

4. Representations and Certifications

5. Terms and Conditions

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

2. i-Edison

3. Vault

4. DARPA Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative (EEI)

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Proposers Day B. Protesting

ATTACHMENT 1: Cost Volume Proposer Checklist ATTACHMENT 2: Proposal Summary Slide Template ATTACHMENT 3: General MTO Controlled Unclassified Information Guide (CUIG) ATTACHMENT 4: Other Transaction (OT) Certifications Template

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Microsystems Technology Office (MTO)

Funding Opportunity Title: H6 Announcement Type: Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number: HR001122S0038 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA): 12.910 Research and

Technology Development Dates: (All times listed herein are Eastern Time) o Posting Date: May 17, 2022 o Abstract Due Date: June 16, 2022 o FAQ Submission Deadline: July 18, 2022 o Proposal Due Date: August 8, 2022 o Proposers Day: May 23, 2022 o Estimated period of performance start: January, 2023

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The H6 program seeks to develop ultra-small, low-power, fieldable clocks that can maintain their timing precision for one week.

Anticipated individual awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

Anticipated funding type: 6.2 Types of instruments that may be awarded: Procurement contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction.

Agency contact:

o Dr. Jonathan Hoffman, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: HR001122S0038@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: HR001122S0038

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001122S0038@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. This BAA is being issued, and any resultant selection will be made, using the procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 C.F.R. § 200.203. Any negotiations and/or awards will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing. Proposals received as a result of this BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified herein through a scientific review process.

DARPA BAAs are posted on the SAM website, under the Contract Opportunities link, at https://sam.gov/, and, as applicable, the grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

The Microsystems Technology Office at DARPA seeks innovative proposals in the areas of ultra-small, low power clocks that can maintain microsecond precision for a week. 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.

A. Background

In ancient times, the greatest challenge in oceanic navigation was accurately measuring a ship’s longitude. In 1550, Dutch mathematician Gemma Frisius first described how to determine longitude using a precise clock, but existing clocks were incapable of maintaining the required precision over the course of the multi-week ocean journeys of the time. Understanding the importance of this problem, in 1714 the British Parliament passed the Act of Longitude,1 which offered a £20,000 prize for any method capable of maintaining knowledge of longitude to one-half degree over the course of a six-week voyage from Britain to the West Indies. With this prize in mind, John Harrison developed five generations of clocks, which he called “H1” through “H5,” the latter representing the first marine chronometer capable of maintaining the necessary accuracy.

H6 is the spiritual successor to Harrison’s maritime chronometers. While the longitude problem was the preeminent positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) challenge of the last millennium, global positing system (GPS) denial is the greatest problem today. Ubiquitous, compact timing is critical for navigation, communications, electronic warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) on low size, weight, and power (SWaP) platforms2. This timing is currently disseminated via GPS, which conditions local oscillators to maintain timing between GPS updates.

A tactical-grade clock that maintains week-long microsecond timing would remove GPS-timing dependence for the majority of DoD missions, enabling signal assurance, pervasive

1 D. Sobel, Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time, (1995).

2 J. R. Vig, Military applications of high accuracy frequency standards and clocks, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control (1993).

communications security, and high-bandwidth communications3 (HBC). Today, no such fieldable tactical-grade clock exists; while there are clocks which can achieve the necessary performance, their SWaP precludes their use in a tactical setting.

The state of the art (SoA) clock technologies fall into two classes: mechanical, such as temperature-compensated crystal oscillators (TCXOs), oven-controlled crystal oscillators (OCXOs), and micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), all of which utilize mechanical resonances; and vapor-based, such as chip-scale atomic clock (CSAC) and cold atom clocks, which utilize atomic transitions. Among current mechanical clocks, OCXOs can achieve the necessary performance but would require volumes >10 L. While for vapor clocks, cesium beam clocks also have the required performance, but at a SWaP of 30 L and 50 W.

B. Program Description

The H6 program seeks to develop ultra-small, low power, fieldable clocks that can maintain microsecond timing precision for a week over an operating range of -40 to 85 °C.

DARPA is interested in any technology that could attain this H6 goal. Potential approaches could include, but are not limited to:

1. Compound mechanical clocks. Current mechanical clocks are a well understood technology with very high performance in short timescales (< 1 s) but on long timescales are limited by the large temperature dependence of the oscillation and by aging-induced drift. In mechanical oscillators, thermal changes alter both the spring constant (via the temperature coefficient of the elastic modulus) and the dimensions of the device (through the coefficient of thermal expansion). The resulting mechanical resonant frequency changes from temperature will exceed the H6 requirements. Even in the absence of temperature changes, a mechanical oscillator’s frequency will drift with time (aging). The dominant mechanisms responsible for this drift are mass transfer and stress relaxation. Surface contaminants can adsorb/desorb from the oscillator, changing the mass and hence the frequency of the oscillator. Similarly, stresses (that either originate in the fabrication of the oscillator or its attachment to a substrate) slowly relax and alter the resonant frequency. Recent advances in MEMS technology have focused on resonators fabricated with multiple materials. Such resonators can fully cancel the first-order temperature coefficient around a selectable set point while reducing higher order effects. Designs have also been proposed that reduce the impact of stress relaxations by localizing the stresses away from the active resonator components.

2. Sub-THz molecular clocks. Small atomic vapor-based clocks have also been intensely studied over the past twenty years. Thermal changes in these clocks induce pressure changes that shift the frequency of atomic transitions. This behavior, inherent to the atomic species and buffer gasses used, has limited the long-term performance of such clocks caused by external temperature changes. In addition, the frequency of atomic vapor-based clocks drifts due to vapor cell leakage, vapor cell internal chemistry, and redistribution of the alkali metal atoms on the vapor cell walls.

Recently, sub-THz molecular clocks have been demonstrated. These clocks interrogate molecular

3 https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/12/5g-meets-time-sensitive-networking https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/12/5g-meets-time-sensitive-networking rovibrational states, not found in atoms, that have reduced temperature dependence compared to the electronic transitions of atomic vapor clocks. In addition, the low boiling point and reduced reactivity of the molecules used should results in negligible deposition of the molecules on the cell walls and less significant internal chemistry.

C. Program Structure

H6 is a 60-month, 3-phase program with a 24-month Phase 1 (Base), an 18-month Phase 2 (Option 1), and an 18-month Phase 3 (Option 2). Options may be exercised, at the Government’s sole discretion, based on technical progress measured against the metrics and milestones defined in the BAA and funding availability. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the H6 program, DARPA encourages proposers to team across industry, academia, FFRDCs, and government, as needed to leverage the broad range of expertise necessary to achieve the program metrics.

D. Technical Areas

The H6 program will have one Technical Area (TA) divided into three phases. DARPA is interested in approaches able to attain the H6 metrics delineated in Table 1.

In Phase 1 (Base) will focus on both clock dependence on temperature and SWaP reduction. The program will not have a universal Allan deviation target; instead, performers are encouraged to offer targets relevant to the progress they expect to achieve for their specific approach. Vibration-induced frequency changes need not be addressed but will need to be measured for the purpose of devising a strategy to address them in later phases.

In Phase 2 (Option 1) will focus on clock aging. Clock operation should be demonstrated throughout the tactical temperature environment.

In Phase 3 (Option 2), performers are expected to demonstrate a fully integrated tactical-grade clock and the fabrication of the deliverable of five (5) clocks.

Table 1: H6 metrics by phase

Unit SOA Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Volume mL 800 1† 2 1

Power mW 10,000 - 300* 150⁑

Time to 1 µs error‡ s 2 x 104

(5.5 hours) - 3 x 105

(1/2 week) 6 x 105

(1 week) Time to 100 ns error‡ s 5.6 x 103

(1.6 hours)

2.8 x 104

(8 hours)

8.64 X 104

(1 day)

8.64 x 104

(1 day)

Operating range °C 0 – 50 15 – 40 0 – 50 -40 – 85

Average df/dT over operating range (°C)-1 10-12 7 x 10-14 7 x 10-14 7 x 10-14

Vibration (g)-1 10-9 Measure 10-12 10-13

Allan deviation (ADEV)4 - Performer defined Performer defined Performer defined

* Performers are free to specify any 25 °C window for the power consumption measurement in Phase 2 ⁑ Power to be measured at an ambient temperature of 15 °C in Phase 3 † Volume includes only the physics package ‡ Assumes a 25 °C temperature change over eight hours followed by a hold at that temperature for a further eight hours; this cycle is then repeated with the subsequent temperature change being either positive or negative to cover the entire operating range.

Successful proposals should provide sufficient detail to justify their assertions for their system volume, power usage, and timing deviation.

Proposers should provide at least three tables detailing: (1) all component volumes; (2) all component power; and (3) all error sources contributing to timing deviation. It is expected the narrative will include appropriate details to explain and substantiate the details in these tables.

E. Schedule/Milestones H6 is a 60-month, three-phase program (24, 18, and 18 months, respectively) with an anticipated start in January 2023. There will be a program kickoff meeting in January 2023, followed by monthly PI meetings and semi-annual site visits.

4 . W. J. Riley, Handbook of Frequency Stability Analysis, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 1065, July 2008.

Additional Technical Milestones:

Phase 1 (Base):

o A design review of the proposed physics package for SWaP reduction and temperature insensitivity to reach programs metrics.

o By month 23, a demonstration in a laboratory setting of the Phase 1 system. The demonstration will include onsite government personnel to validate the experimental results.

Phase 2 (Option 1):

o A design review of the proposed physics package and electronic integration for long-term performance of the clock.

o By month 17, a report detailing experimental demonstration of the Phase 2 metrics using an integrated physics and electronics package. The demonstration will include onsite government personnel to validate the experimental results.

Phase 3 (Option 2):

o Five fully-integrated clock prototypes delivered to a government test facility/facilities.

o Documentation required for government testing and evaluation using standard laboratory equipment.

Meetings and Travel:

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

To foster collaboration between teams and disseminate program developments, a two-day Principal Investigator (PI) meeting will be held approximately every six months with locations split between the East and West Coasts of the United States. For budgeting purposes, plan for ten two-day meetings over the course of 60 months: six meetings in the Washington, D.C. area and four meetings in the San Francisco, CA area.

Regular teleconference meetings will be scheduled with the Government team for progress reporting as well as problem identification and mitigation.

Proposers should anticipate at least two site visit per year by the DARPA Program Manager during which they will have the opportunity to demonstrate progress towards agreed-upon milestones.

F. Deliverables

Performers will be expected to provide at a minimum the following deliverables:

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

A phase completion report submitted within 30 days of the end of each phase, Post summarizing the research done. This report will include:

o Description of the technical developments and achievements toward the metrics o Clock test results (Allan deviations, time deviations, temperature sensitivity, vibration sensitivity, etc.)

o Tables and explanations of how the experimental results meet, or exceed the program metrics.

o Plans and projections for the subsequent phase with an updated risk assessment in each of the critical program areas.

Other negotiated deliverables specific to the objectives of the individual efforts.

These may include registered reports; experimental protocols; publications; data management plan; intermediate and final versions of software libraries, code, and APIs, including documentation and user manuals; and/or a comprehensive assemblage of design documents, models, modeling data and results, and model validation data.

Reporting as outlined in Section VI.C.

Five (5) fully-integrated clock prototypes that meet the final H6 metrics will be delivered to a government test facility/facilities by the end of the program. All prototypes should be provided with adequate documentation for government testing and evaluation using standard laboratory equipment. The exact location of the facility/facilities will be specified by the end of Phase 2.

G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information

No Government Furnished Equipment, Property, or Information will be provided for the effort solicited in this BAA.

H. Intellectual Property Any use of proposer-defined intellectual property (patents, proprietary information, etc.) should be clearly marked as such within the proposal. Include all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting the effort and/or necessary for the use of 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.10.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

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

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

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see section labeled “Application Review Information,” Sec. V.), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. 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 proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research

B. Fundamental Research

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

University or non-profit research institution performance under this solicitation may include effort categorized as fundamental research. In addition to Government support for free and open scientific exchanges and dissemination of research results in a broad and unrestricted manner, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient, regardless of tier, acknowledges that such research may have implications that are important to U.S. national interests and must be protected against foreign influence and exploitation. As such, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient agrees to comply with the following requirements:

(a) The University or non-profit research institution performer or recipient must establish and maintain an internal process or procedure to address foreign talent programs, conflicts of commitment, conflicts of interest, and research integrity. The academic or non-profit research performer or recipient must also utilize due diligence to identify Foreign Components or participation by Senior/Key Personnel in Foreign Government Talent Recruitment Programs and agree to share such information with the Government upon request.

i. The above described information will be provided to the Government as part of the proposal response to the solicitation and will be reviewed and assessed prior to award. Generally, this information will be included in the Research and Related Senior/Key Personnel Profile (Expanded) form (SF-424) required as part the proposer’s submission through Grants.gov.

1. Instructions regarding how to fill out the SF-424 and its biographical sketch can be found through Grants.gov.

ii. In accordance with USD(R&E) direction to mitigate undue foreign influence in DoD-funded science and technology, DARPA will assess all Senior/Key Personnel proposed to support DARPA grants and cooperative agreements for potential undue foreign influence risk factors relating to professional and financial activities. This will be done by evaluating information provided via the SF-424, and any accompanying or referenced documents, in order to identify and assess any associations or affiliations the Senior/Key Personnel may have with foreign strategic competitors or countries that have a history of intellectual property theft, research misconduct, or history of targeting U.S. technology for unauthorized transfer. DARPA’s evaluation takes into consideration the entirety of the Senior/Key Personnel’s SF-424, current and pending support, and biographical sketch, placing the most weight on the Senior/Key Person’s professional and financial activities over the last 4 years. The majority of foreign entities lists used to make these determinations are publicly available. The DARPA Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP) “Senior/Key Personnel Foreign Influence Risk Rubric” details the various risk ratings and factors. The rubric can be seen at the following link:

https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/092021DARPACFIPRubric.pdf

iii. Examples of lists that DARPA leverages to assess potential undue foreign influence factors include, but are not limited to:

1. Executive Order 13959 “Addressing the Threat From Securities Investments That Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies”:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf

2. The U.S. Department of Education’s College Foreign Gift and Contract Report: College Foreign Gift Reporting (ed.gov)

3. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, List of Parties of Concern: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern

4. Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) Chinese Talent Program Tracker:

https://chinatalenttracker.cset.tech

5. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) “World Wide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”: 2021 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (dni.gov)

6. Various Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) products regarding targeting of US technologies, adversary targeting of academia, and the exploitation of academic experts: https://www.dcsa.mil/

DARPA’s analysis and assessment of affiliations and associations of Senior/Key Personnel is compliant with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Information regarding race, color, or national origin is not collected and does not have bearing in DARPA’s assessment.

https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/092021DARPACFIPRubric.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf https://sites.ed.gov/foreigngifts/ https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern https://chinatalenttracker.cset.tech/ https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2204-2021-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2204-2021-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community https://www.dcsa.mil/

University or non-profit research institutions with proposals selected for negotiation that have been assessed as having high or very high undue foreign influence risk, will be given an opportunity during the negotiation process to mitigate the risk. DARPA reserves the right to request any follow-up information needed to assess risk or mitigation strategies.

iv. Upon conclusion of the negotiations, if DARPA determines, despite any proposed mitigation terms (e.g. mitigation plan, alternative research personnel), the participation of any Senior/Key Research Personnel still represents high risk to the program, or proposed mitigation affects the Government’s confidence in proposer’s capability to successfully complete the research (e.g., less qualified Senior/Key Research Personnel) the Government may determine not to award the proposed effort. Any decision not to award will be predicated upon reasonable disclosure of the pertinent facts and reasonable discussion of any possible alternatives while balancing program award timeline requirements.

(b) Failure of the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient to reasonably exercise due diligence to discover or ensure that neither it nor any of its Senior/Key Research Personnel involved in the subject award are participating in a Foreign Government Talent Program or have a Foreign Component with an a strategic competitor or country with a history of targeting U.S. technology for unauthorized transfer may result in the Government exercising remedies in accordance with federal law and regulation.

i. If, at any time, during performance of this research award, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient should learn that it, its Senior/Key Research Personnel, or applicable team members or subtier performers on this award are or are believed to be participants in a Foreign Government Talent Program or have Foreign Components with a strategic competitor or country with a history of targeting U.S. technology for unauthorized transfer , the performer or recipient will notify the Government Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer within 5 business days.

1. This disclosure must include specific information as to the personnel involved and the nature of the situation and relationship. The Government will have 30 business days to review this information and conduct any necessary fact-finding or discussion with the performer or recipient.

2. The Government’s timely determination and response to this disclosure may range anywhere from acceptance, to mitigation, to termination of this award at the Government’s discretion.

3. If the University receives no response from the Government to its disclosure within 30 business days, it may presume that the Government has determined the disclosure does not represent a threat.

ii. The performer or recipient must flow down this provision to any subtier contracts or agreements involving direct participation in the performance of the research.

(c) Definitions

i. Senior/Key Research Personnel

1. This definition would include the Principal Investigator or Program/Project Director and other individuals who contribute to the scientific development or execution of a project in a substantive, measurable way, whether or not they receive salaries or compensation under the award. These include individuals whose absence from the project would be expected to impact the approved scope of the project.

2. Most often, these individuals will have a doctorate or other professional degrees, although other individuals may be included within this definition on occasion.

ii. Foreign Associations/Affiliations

1. Association is defined as collaboration, coordination or interrelation, professionally or personally, with a foreign government-connected entity where no direct monetary or non-monetary reward is involved.

2. Affiliation is defined as collaboration, coordination, or interrelation, professionally or personally, with a foreign government-connected entity where direct monetary or non-monetary reward is involved.

iii. Foreign Government Talent Recruitment Programs

1. In general, these programs will include any foreign-state-sponsored attempt to acquire U.S. scientific-funded research or technology through foreign government-run or funded recruitment programs that target scientists, engineers, academics, researchers, and entrepreneurs of all nationalities working and educated in the U.S.

2. Distinguishing features of a Foreign Government Talent Recruitment Program may include:

a. Compensation, either monetary or in-kind, provided by the foreign state to the targeted individual in exchange for the individual transferring their knowledge and expertise to the foreign country.

b. In-kind compensation may include honorific titles, career advancement opportunities, promised future compensation or other types of remuneration or compensation.

c. Recruitment, in this context, refers to the foreign-state-sponsor’s active engagement in attracting the targeted individual to join the foreign-sponsored program and transfer their knowledge and expertise to the foreign state. The targeted individual may be employed and located in the U.S. or in the foreign state.

d. Contracts for participation in some programs that create conflicts of commitment and/or conflicts of interest for researchers. These contracts include, but are not limited to, requirements to attribute awards, patents, and projects to the foreign institution, even if conducted under U.S. funding, to recruit or train other talent recruitment plan members, circumventing merit-based processes, and to replicate or transfer U.S.-funded work in another country.

e. Many, but not all, of these programs aim to incentivize the targeted individual to physically relocate to the foreign state. Of particular concern are those programs that allow for continued employment at U.S. research facilities or receipt of U.S. Government research funding while concurrently receiving compensation from the foreign state.

3. Foreign Government Talent Recruitment Programs DO NOT include:

a. Research agreements between the University and a foreign entity, unless that agreement includes provisions that create situations of concern addressed elsewhere in this section,

b. Agreements for the provision of goods or services by commercial vendors, or

c. Invitations to attend or present at conferences.

iv. Conflict of Interest

1. A situation in which an individual, or the individual’s spouse or dependent children, has a financial interest or financial relationship that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, reporting, or funding of research.

v. Conflict of Commitment

1. A situation in which an individual accepts or incurs conflicting obligations between or among multiple employers or other entities.

2. Common conflicts of commitment involve conflicting commitments of time and effort, including obligations to dedicate time in excess of institutional or funding agency policies or commitments. Other types of conflicting obligations, including obligations to improperly share information with, or withhold information from, an employer or funding agency, can also threaten research security and integrity and are an element of a broader concept of conflicts of commitment.

vi. Foreign Component

1. Performance of any significant scientific element or segment of a program or project outside of the U.S., either by the University or by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, whether or not U.S. government funds are expended.

2. Activities that would meet this definition include, but are not limited to:

a. Involvement of human subjects or animals;

b. Extensive foreign travel by University research program or project staff for the purpose of data collection, surveying, sampling, and similar activities;

c. Collaborations with investigators at a foreign site anticipated to result in co-authorship;

d. Use of facilities or instrumentation at a foreign site;

e. Receipt of financial support or resources from a foreign entity; or

f. Any activity of the University that may have an impact on U.S.

foreign policy through involvement in the affairs or environment of a foreign country.

3. Foreign travel is not considered a Foreign Component.

vii. Strategic Competitor

1. A nation, or nation-state, that engages in diplomatic, economic or technological rivalry with the United States where the fundamental strategic interests of the U.S are under threat.

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

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

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

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

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

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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

b) Government Entities

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

c) Authority and Eligibility

At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 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. Other Applicants 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 and https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

1. Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged.

IV. Application and Submission Information

PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE LOWERED

AND/OR PROPOSALS REJECTED IF PROPOSAL PREPARATION (PROPOSAL FORMAT,

CONTENT, ETC.) AND/OR SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil/

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 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. 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. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal. Abstracts should follow the format described below in this section. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT” and the total length of Section II should not exceed 7 pages.

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001122S0038);

(2) Technical area(s);

(3) Lead Organization submitting abstract;

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

Large Organization, Small Disadvantaged Organization, Other Small Organization, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, Other Nonprofit;

(5) Proposer’s internal 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 (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

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

(11) Date proposal abstract was submitted.

(Note: An official transmittal letter is not required when submitting a Proposal Abstract.)

http://www.darpa.mil/

Section II. Abstract Details

This section provides an overview of the proposed work as well as an introduction to the associated technical and management issues.

A. Innovative Claims Summary of innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the abstract and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

B. Technical Approach Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production.

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

D. Cost and Schedule Provide a cost estimate for resources (e.g. labor, materials) and any subcontractors over the proposed timeline of the project, broken down by Government fiscal year.

2. Full Proposal Format

All full proposals must be in the format given below. Proposals shall consist of two volumes:

Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal (3 sections), and Volume II – Cost Proposal (4 sections). The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Section II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, shall not exceed 25 pages. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. There is no page limit for Volume II, Cost Proposal.

A summary slide of the proposed effort, in PowerPoint format, should be submitted with the proposal. A template slide is provided as Attachment 2 to the BAA. Submit this PowerPoint file in addition to Volumes I and II of your full proposal. This summary slide does not count towards the total page count.

a. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

The following Volume I subsections are examples of language used in a BAA which should be revised to fit the needs of the program.

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001122S0038);

(2) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

(3) Type of organization, selected among the following categories:

Large Organization, Small Disadvantaged Organization, Other Small Organization, HBCU, MI, Other Educational, Other Nonprofit;

(4) Proposer’s internal reference number (if any);

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

(6) Proposal title;

(7) Technical point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

(8) Administrative point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code (+4), telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail;

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

(10) Date proposal was submitted.

B. Official transmittal letter.

Th…