HR001122S0046_APEX_Amendment-01_FINAL.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED HR001122S0046

UNCLASSIFIED

Broad Agency Announcement

Advanced Propulsor, Experimental (APEX)

DARPA TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001122S0046

Amendment 1

16 September 2022

UNCLASSIFIED 2

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Publish questions submitted to DARPA by the “Questions Due” date as well as their associated answers.

2. Update language to reflect that the questions and answers are contained in a Controlled

Unclassified Information (CUI) document and will be distributed as part of the

“CLASSIFIED & CUI document package” previously known as the “CLASSIFIED document package”.

3. Revise the “Proposals Due” date from 27 September 2022 to 13 October 2022.

4. Add a requirement for performers to generate and submit to DARPA for agreement an

Action Items List following each programmatic engagement.

Changes are highlighted in yellow throughout the document.

UNCLASSIFIED 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

B. Proposals and Awards

C. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

V. Application Review Information

A. Evaluation Criteria

B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information

A. Selection Notices and Notifications

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

C. Reporting

D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts

VIII. Other Information

UNCLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS (available with BAA listing on sam.gov)

Template 1: Administrative and National Policy Requirements Document

Template 2: Proposal Summary Slides

Template 3: DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet

CLASSIFIED & CUI DOCUMENT PACKAGE (obtained via instructions contained in this document)

Security Classification Guide (SCG) Addendum 1: Classified Funding Opportunity Description Attachment 1: Classified Design Space Exploration Requirements

UNCLASSIFIED 4

Attachment 2: Classified Proposers’ Day Slides Attachment 3: Classified Proposers’ Day Questions & Answers Attachment 4: Classified Seedling/Super-Seedling Technical Package Addendum 2: CUI BAA Questions & Answers

UNCLASSIFIED 5

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

• Funding Opportunity Title – Advanced Propulsor, Experimental (APEX)

• Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

• Funding Opportunity Number – HR001122S0046

• Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not Applicable

• Dates o Posting Date: 10 August 2022 o Questions Due: 24 August 2022 at 5 P.M. Eastern Time o Proposal Due: 13 October 2022 at 5 P.M. Eastern Time

• Concise description of the funding opportunity – The APEX program will design, build, and test classified submarine propulsor technology. The BAA seeks full proposals for Phase 1 (Phase 1A Base, Phase 1B Option, and Phase 1C Option) and a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for Phase 2 (Phase 2A and Phase 2B). Phase 1A focuses on design space exploration and concept design activities concluding with a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR). Phase 1B continues the maturation of selected concept(s) and concludes with a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Phase 1C is an opportunity for risk reduction efforts in advance of Phase 2. Through a limited competition among Phase 1B performers, a single performer and single concept may be selected for Phase 2 of the program where a detailed design will be finalized and conclude with a Critical Design Review (CDR) and a quarter-scale demonstration unit will be built and tested.

• Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The anticipated budget for Phase 1 is approximately $40M across multiple performers.

• Multiple awards are anticipated.

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

Transaction.

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

HR001122S0046@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001122S0046

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

UNCLASSIFIED 6

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical area: advanced submarine propulsors.

The Advanced Propulsor, Experimental (APEX) program contains both UNCLASSIFIED and CLASSIFIED elements. This document, along with Addendum 2, conveys the UNCLASSIFIED aspects of the program, with other portions of this BAA, such as Addendum 1, its supporting Attachments 1-4, and the Security Classification Guide (SCG,) being classified SECRET. The documents which make up the classified and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) portions of this BAA will be referred to as the “CLASSIFIED & CUI document package” and must be requested via the process detailed in subsequent sections below. See the CLASSIFIED & CUI document package for further information on this funding opportunity beyond what is contained in this document.

Program Overview: Performers will explore the propulsor design space of potential solutions for a submarine or unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV). Relevant areas of expertise include hydro-dynamics, hydro-acoustics, mechanical engineering, naval architecture (submarine), electro-mechanical, and other disciplines. The Design Space Exploration (DSE) process is expected to explore the design space with metrics related to efficiency, signature, mechanical design and limits, and operational considerations. The details of the DSE are included in Addendum 1 and its attachments, including metrics of interest used to evaluate trades between designs.

Phase 1A Base is a 12-month period in which performers are expected to quantitatively explore the APEX design space via a proposed DSE process. Proposals should describe the planned approach to trade space exploration and the design evolution process to assess multiple potential APEX designs and culminate in a conceptual design review (CoDR), which may include multiple potential designs. Proposers should describe the design process they intend to use, and the tools and techniques they plan to employ to conduct their DSE, as well as starting points, points of departure, and any candidate designs they intend to evaluate and why they are of interest in the trade space. CoDR level designs should only consider the full-scale designs.

Phase 1B Option is a 9-month period which may be exercised dependent upon performance and funding availability. In Phase 1B, performers will work toward defining a single APEX design approach based on the CoDR results, then refine the design through engineering design and analysis, and risk reduction activities. Phase 1B will include a System Requirements Review (SRR) and culminate with a preliminary design review (PDR) of the APEX design. PDR should

UNCLASSIFIED 7

include the selected full-scale objective design and a quarter-scale demonstration design variant intended for fabrication and testing in Phase 2. Proposers will be expected to show traceability between the objective and demonstration designs.

Phase 1C Option is a 3-month period which may be exercised to refine the PDR design following Government feedback form the PDR, and conduct any necessary risk reduction activities that result from the PDR. The performer will review all design documentation, requirements, risk analysis and program costs and provide an updated brief to the Government reflecting modifications and implications to the objective and demonstration designs. Phase 1C tasks are expected to incorporate detailed analysis, design, and risk reduction activities for key sub-systems justifying a trajectory for future Phase 2 Critical Design Review (CDR)-level maturity.

Proposers are expected to demonstrate via technology maturation and risk reduction activities, readiness to proceed through Phase 2 of the program, with the capability to be the system integrator for construction of the APEX demonstrator vessel and conduct water-borne demonstration testing.

The deliverable table below outlines the minimum set of program deliverables for Phase 1.

Deliverables

Deliverable Due date Description Kick-off meeting presentation

1 Month after award

(MAA)

Presentation that summarizes the Phase 1 plan, highlighting changes made since proposal submission and detailing the first three months of Phase 1.

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

1 MAA; Initial at kick-off meeting, then updated quarterly

Program schedule, incorporating detailed plans.

Technology Maturation Plan (TMP)

1 MAA; Initial at kick-off meeting, then updated quarterly

Document that defines the technology maturation plan. Must include current risk assessment and progress against risk waterfalls.

Operation Security Plan (OPSEC) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Mitigation Plan

1 MAA; Initial at kick-off meeting then update for any change in security posture

Plans used to identify and monitor security activities during the performance of a contract. Both plans are intended to be a living document that will require periodic updates throughout the life of the contract.

Technical Status Teleconference

Monthly Teleconference to discuss progress over the previous month and plans for the upcoming month.

Technical and financial status report

Monthly; delivered 2 business days prior to technical status teleconference

Report that provides technical, financial, and schedule updates.

UNCLASSIFIED 8

Quarterly Program Review (QPR)

Quarterly Presentation outlining technical progress, planned future activities, and program management updates (to include cost, schedule, and personnel).

CoDR documentation 12 MAA; CoDR data items delivered 1 week prior to CoDR

Documentation that defines the conceptual design, as influenced by trade space assessment and trade study results. It should include feasibility analysis, technology maturation plan update (including risk assessment), and preliminary assessment of projected design performance against performance objectives and associated subsystem objective metrics.

Post CoDR report 13 MAA; report delivered 1 month after CoDR

Documentation that incorporates Government provided feedback, following the CoDR, into the design(s).

This can be incorporated into the Phase 1 final report if not selected for Phase 1B.

System Requirements Review (SRR) documentation

15 MAA; SRR data items delivered 1 week prior to SRR

Documentation detailing system requirements specification (functional and performance), requirement traceability matrix, and decomposition for verification and validation roadmap.

PDR documentation 21 MAA; PDR data items delivered 1 week prior to PDR

Documentation that details the preliminary design of the APEX full-scale and quarter-scale designs. Phase 2 cost ROM update. Critical system documentation should be summarized and available at the review.

Post PDR report 22 MAA; report delivered 1 month after PDR

Documentation that incorporates Government-provided feedback, following the PDR, into the design(s).

This can be incorporated into the final report if not selected for Phase 1C.

Trade study reports Report delivered within 2 weeks after completion of trade study

Report or annotated briefing that describes the trades conducted, indicating impact and traceability to respective metrics.

Risk reduction activity report

Report delivered within 2 weeks after completion of risk reduction activity

Report or annotated briefing that describes the major risk reduction activities, outcomes, and consequences to design and development.

Phase 1 final report 13 MAA, 22 MAA, or 25 MAA, as

Report that details all Phase 1 activities, capturing top-level results of all trade

UNCLASSIFIED 9

selected (13 MAA for performers ending after Phase 1A. 22 MAA for performers ending after Phase 1B. 25 MAA for performers completing Phase 1C) studies, design performance analyses, and demonstration design.

Action Items Lists Delivered to DARPA for agreement within 2 business days of each programmatic engagement above.

Action items list to capture all commitments and deliverables identified at the meeting, including responsible person and due date.

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

Design Reviews: The Performer will execute appropriate program reviews. Phase 1 program reviews will include a CoDR SRR, and PDR with content and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard (e.g., Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) guidelines available at https://dag.dau.mil and MIL-STD-1521B are suggested sources) for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program, as appropriate for the proposed effort. Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation of the technology, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. Specific expectations for the APEX program are outlined below, and should be incorporated into the proposer’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.

https://dag.dau.mil/ https://dag.dau.mil/

UNCLASSIFIED 10

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

Minimum information to be provided:

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

• A pathway to SRR is identified.

• System baseline technologies for propulsor approaches identified.

• Modeling and Simulation methods for verification are identified, and required enhancements or modifications are also identified.

• Initial trade space results are presented

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

• Projected objective system performance capabilities against demonstration profile.

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

• Updated Phase 1B/1C IMS, and summary of proposed testing and analysis timelines and methodologies for Phase 2.

SRR

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

UNCLASSIFIED 11

• 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 – System (level 1), subsystem (level 2), and component (level 3) requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., analysis, integration, test, and demonstration) are identified. Interfaces are documented.

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

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

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

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

CDR (Planned Phase 2 program review, mentioned for completeness and situational awareness)

• Requirements Development – Subcomponent (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 the subcomponent level (level 4) and achieve compliance with all associated requirements.

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

Government Management Approach and Operations: The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government team is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which may be augmented with Government-led Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) for targeted technical disciplines, for example, systems engineering, integration, modeling & 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.

UNCLASSIFIED 12

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

This BAA solicits proposals only for Phase 1A (Base), Phase 1B (Option) and Phase 1C (Option) and additional proposed and substantiated Phase1 options as described below. 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.

This BAA requests a single, full proposal that includes all of the following: Phase 1A (Base), Phase 1B (Option), and Phase 1C (Option). DARPA may exercise Phase 1B Options prior to the end of the Phase 1A period of performance based on Phase 1A execution and funding availability. DARPA may exercise Phase 1C Options prior to the end of the Phase 1B period of performance based on Phase 1B execution and funding availability.

For Phase 1, proposals should focus on the process of DSE through CoDR, and then maturing the selected approach through SRR, and PDR. Proposals are expected to identify knowledge gaps and the associated analysis and test plans to fill those gaps early in the program. While it is required that offerors propose to Phase 1A base, Phase 1B option, and Phase 1C option;

additional risk reduction activities may be proposed as options. If such options are proposed, proposers should delineate their period of performance accordingly in the Phase 1 timeline.

DARPA requests that Phase 1 proposals include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for Phase 2. This ROM will be for planning purposes only and not be considered as part of the evaluation process, nor will it be binding for Phase 2 proposals (if any). Proposers need to ensure that the Phase 1A, 1B, and 1C portions of their technical proposals sufficiently demonstrate foresight for successful transition to Phases 2.

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

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

UNCLASSIFIED 13

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. § 4022(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 Phase 1 (including options) and a ROM for Phase 2.

It is anticipated that the Government will request proposals for Phase 2 during Phase 1B Option.

It is anticipated that this proposal will be due around the time of PDR. Only those performers whose Phase 1 Option 1B is exercised will be invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal.

Submission of updated full proposals for future phases is optional and associated proposal preparation costs will not be reimbursed under Phase 1 awards. Performers who choose not to submit an updated full proposal for future phases will not be considered for future awards. To continue the program beyond the Phase 1 contract is the decision of the Government and will be based on Phase 1 results, Government need, the availability of funds, the determination that performers have made sufficient progress towards meeting program performance objectives, maturing the required technologies and addressing risks, and scientific review of the proposals.

Evaluations of updated full proposals for future phases will be based on evaluation criteria to be specified in the proposal request.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

UNCLASSIFIED 14

C. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Eligibility Information

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

UNCLASSIFIED 15

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

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

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

c) Authority and Eligibility At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 4892 may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and Government Entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

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

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

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements

In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the solicitation. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to

UNCLASSIFIED 16

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.

UNCLASSIFIED 17

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

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

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

The CLASSIFIED & CUI document package in support of this BAA can be requested via e-mail to HR001122S0046@darpa.mil and received through either of the following methods:

• Electronically via appropriate computer system. Senders should coordinate by sending an UNCLASSIFIED e-mail request to HR001122S0046@darpa.mil. Once appropriate access to Classified IT system is verified, the CLASSIFIED & CUI document package will be sent.

OR

• In hardcopy via mail. Senders should coordinate by sending an UNCLASSIFIED e-mail request to HR001122S0046@darpa.mil. Requests for the package should include, at a minimum, the organization name, technical POC name and phone number, FSO name and phone number, CAGE code, statement of facility clearance and safeguarding capability, and a valid address for receiving classified material at the SECRET level via express mail. DARPA will verify the facility clearance and the clearance of the recipient before mailing the classified material. If the classified mailing address is not authorized for express mail, this should be indicated in the request and the package will be sent via USPS registered mail. Further handling instructions will accompany the package.

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

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. All hard copies must be on 8½ inch by 11-inch paper with 1” margins. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Full page figures, tables, and charts may be larger than 8 ½ inch by 11 inches. 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.

https://sam.gov/ http://www.darpa.mil/ mailto:HR001122S0046@darpa.mil mailto:HR001122S0046@darpa.mil

UNCLASSIFIED 18

1. Proposal Format

All complete proposal packages must include the parts listed below.

The proposal shall be delivered in two volumes, Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal (composed of three parts) and Volume II – Cost Proposal. While it is anticipated that Volume I will contain classified content, it is anticipated the Volume II will be mostly, if not completely, unclassified. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 80 pages. Bracketed numbers (e.g., {5}) before each section denote recommended page limits, proposers may deviate from these, as long as their overall Volume I is no longer than 80 pages. (Note: Any full-page Figure Table or Chart does not count against the page limit and can be oversized as needed to convey the information clearly)

Additionally, proposals must include a completed Template 1: “Administrative and National Policy Requirements Document” and Template 2: “Proposal Summary Slides” (both available with the BAA on sam.gov) and they do not count against the page limit.

Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and management approaches. 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 (HR001122S0046);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

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

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

NONPROFIT”

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

UNCLASSIFIED 19

(b) Official transmittal letter

Section II: Summary of Proposal

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

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

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

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

Proposers responding to this BAA must submit a separate list of all technical data or computer software that will be furnished to the Government with other than unlimited rights.

The Government will assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property restrictions in their proposals. Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.2.i of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

D. {1} General discussion of other research in this area.

E. {2} A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable:

(1) the programmatic relationship of team members; (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 any resulting contract/agreement will indicate no substitution shall be made without prior approval of the Government.

Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

A. {20} DSE approach: Detailed technical approach and plan for DSE methodology to be used in Phase 1 to explore potential APEX design concepts. Specific details of the DSE are included in the classified addendum and attachments as part of the classified document

UNCLASSIFIED 20

package which accompanies this document. Successful proposals will include details in this section on software tools, modeling approaches, methodologies, trade space considerations, and other relevant details as to how proposers will conduct their DSE efforts. Proposers should indicate what Government provided tools or information they might need to execute their DSE to the fullest extent, but should not cost these Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) or Government-Furnished Information (GFI) requests. Proposals should also include timelines associated with their DSE methodology (e.g., rates of design generation to be expected, timelines/gates associated with down-selection of designs), and boundaries associated with what the DSE will or will not explore. In short, this section should convey to DARPA how the proposer will develop their insight on APEX design choices, leading to an understanding of the Pareto front associated with the design space.

B. {15} APEX vision: Proposers should provide an initial concept or concepts for how APEX might be designed and what critical technologies and technical challenges exist that they would propose exploring in Phase 1. The rationale underlying proposers’ initial thought processes, and their concepts for how APEX should be built, should be addressed. In particular, proposers are encouraged to identify key trades or areas of uncertainty in their initial conceptual design and point to methodology in their DSE designed to evaluate and resolve those trades.

C. {10} Testing and Evaluation: Proposers 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 the test methodologies and key test activities (including early scaled model testing) for the Phase 1 and future phases including test rationale, objectives, facilities, and metrics; and an assessment of the technical maturity level at the end of Phase 1.

D. {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.

UNCLASSIFIED 21

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.

E. {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 2 (subsystem) or below for work through CoDR and to level 3 (component) or below for work through PDR, 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;

• A definition of all 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 sub-awardee) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

Note: The SOW must be structured so that Phase 1A, Phase 1B option, Phase 1C, and any additional options are clearly delineated and separately defined.

See Figure 2 below for an example of a notional WBS.

UNCLASSIFIED 22

Figure 2. Sample WBS Structure Levels

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

F. {no page limit} Include an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) 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.

G. {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.