HR001122S0048-Amendment-02.pdf

HR001122S0048

Broad Agency Announcement

Gambit

DARPA TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001122S0048

Amendment 02

Release Date October 27, 2022

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise the maximum page limit for Volume I as noted below, and in PART IV on page 21.

Revisions are highlighted in yellow throughout the document.

1. IV.B.1The maximum page limit for Volume I is 49 pages, excluding the sections with no page limit. Bracketed numbers before each section denote recommended page limits.

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Background and Overview B. Program Approach C. Proposal Expectations D. Management Expectations E. Major Review Expectations

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

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

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Requesting Security Classification Guide, DD 254, and Classified Addendum B. Content and Form of Application Submission

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

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title – Gambit Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001122S0048 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: September 30, 2022 o Classified Addendum Requests Due Date and Time: October 14, 2022, at 5:00

Eastern Time (ET) o Questions Due Date and Time: October 21, 2022, at 5:00 ET o Proposal Due Date and Time: December 16, 2022, at 5:00 ET

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The Gambit program seeks to develop and demonstrate a Rotating Detonation Engine (RDE) propulsion system that enables standoff strike of time-critical targets from 4th generation fighters at campaign scale. Phase 1 of the program is anticipated to last 18 months and result in awards to two performers. Phase 1 performers will conduct conceptual design of an Operational System (OS) that meets the objectives specified in the classified addendum and a preliminary design of a Demonstration System (DS) ram-RDE propulsion system that meets requirements derived from the performer’s OS. To substantiate the preliminary DS design, Phase 1 performers should execute RDE combustor testing and inlet testing.

Phase 2 is expected to last 18 months with a down-select to a single performer. Phase 2 performer(s) will complete detailed design of the DS, fabricate the DS, and culminate in full-scale testing of the weapon-traceable DS at flight conditions. Successful completion of Phase 2 is anticipated to pave a path to flight test of a prototype weapon in a future program.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated under this BAA, based on funding availability.

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

Agency contact o Points of Contact

The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001122S0048@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: BAA# HR001122S0048

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001122S0048@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical area(s): air-to-ground weapons and rotating-detonation engines. 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.

Key aspects of the Gambit program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of Gambit will be eligible for funding under this BAA.

Instructions for requesting the Security Classification Guide (SCG), DD 254, and classified addendum are in Section IV.A of this BAA.

A. Background and Overview

Current weapons propulsion technologies include conventional rockets, ramjets, and gas turbine engines. Each of these technologies has limitations in maximum range, speed, and/or affordability that hinders its ability to address time-critical targets at campaign scale from standoff ranges. Given the limitations of existing propulsion technologies, Gambit is focused on developing ram-RDEs as a new class of propulsion to enable standoff strike of time-critical targets from 4th generation fighters at campaign scale.

Existing ramjet engines burn a fuel-air mixture at constant pressure with subsonic flame speeds (i.e., deflagration). In contrast, ram-RDEs burn the fuel-air mixture in an annular combustor through a detonation wave rotating at high velocity in the annulus. These constant-volume detonations make ram-RDE combustors more compact and operable at speeds beginning much lower than conventional ramjets. The compactness of RDE combustors enables ram-RDE weapons to carry more fuel compared to conventional ramjets. Additionally, the operability of ram-RDEs at lower Mach enables them to switch from low-efficiency rocket-booster propulsion to high-efficiency air-breathing propulsion earlier in the flight trajectory than conventional ramjets. As a result, ram-RDEs require less booster propulsion, allowing more volume for fuel compared to a ramjet. The combination of these effects allows ram-RDEs to have significantly longer ranges than conventional ramjets, which enables their employment at standoff ranges. In addition to the range advantage, ram-RDEs do not have moving parts in the flow path, which enables them to be manufactured more affordably than comparatively complex high-Mach turbine engines.

B. Program Approach

The Gambit program will have two phases, with the first anticipated to last 18 months and the second expected to last 18 months, as shown in Figure 1. Proposers shall include Phase 1 in the base program and Phase 2 as a contract option. In Phase 1, performers should develop an OS concept—defined as the performer-derived vision ram-RDE-propelled weapon system—that meets the performance objectives in the classified addendum to this BAA. Requirements for the OS propulsion subsystem should then be derived from this OS concept (see Figure 2).

Performers should document the OS concept and OS propulsion subsystem requirements in a combined OS Conceptual Design Review and DS System Requirements Review (OS CoDR/DS SRR). Phase 1 performers should then design a complete conceptual design of their DS. The DS is defined as a freejet test article that focuses on demonstrating the DS’s propulsion subsystem meets the requirements of the OS propulsion subsystem (see Figure 2). In particular, the DS’s propulsion subsystem should utilize flight-weight materials, include fuel or ram air cooling as needed, incorporate flight-weight ignition, include flight-weight actuation for any movable geometry, utilize the fuel required by the OS, and meet OS-derived performance metrics (e.g. air capture, thrust, specific impulse, etc) throughout the OS flight trajectory. Performers should document the DS concept in a DS CoDR, which can be held in conjunction with the OS CoDR/DS SRR, or as a separate review.

Figure 1: Notional Gambit Program Schedule (See Section I.E below for detailed milestone descriptions)

Following the OS CoDR, DS SRR, and DS CoDR, Phase 1 performers should begin preliminary design of the DS. In parallel with design activities, performers should execute RDE ground testing on critical components to include, but not limited to, combustor testing and inlet testing, to inform the DS design. Phase 1 should culminate with a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of the DS. Data from testing in Phase 1 should be used to update the OS conceptual design and requirements for the DS. The PDR should substantiate the DS design is adequately informed by test results to demonstrate a propulsion subsystem that meets the OS-derived requirements in Phase 2.

Figure 2: Requirements hierarchy and traceability of DS Propulsion Subsystem to OS Propulsion Subsystem

DARPA expects Phase 2 will down select to a single performer based on the quality of the performers’ preliminary DS designs in Phase 1 and their ability to demonstrate an RDE combustor that meets the OS-derived performance objectives. In Phase 2, the performer should complete detailed design of the DS and hold a Critical Design Review (CDR) to document the detailed design of the DS. Following the CDR, the performer should fabricate the DS. Proposals should identify any materials, parts, or assemblies that require procurement or fabrication to begin prior to CDR and provide a mitigation strategy for beginning the activities before CDR.

Phase 2 should culminate with full-scale testing of the DS in freejet wind tunnel facilities at flight conditions to validate the ability of the DS propulsion subsystem to meet the OS propulsion subsystem requirements. Prior to the freejet testing, the performer should test individual components to characterize their performance and minimize risk prior to entry in the freejet facility. After completion of the DS freejet testing, the performer should utilize the data gained in Phase 1 and 2 to update their OS conceptual design. At a minimum, this should include an update of the OS’ trajectory, operational analysis, and propulsion subsystem cycle deck. The updated OS concept should be documented in a delta-OS CoDR.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, the performer(s) should complete a final report summarizing the work accomplished over the course of the project, documenting the final OS and DS concepts, and providing lessons learned for future programs. The final report should reference the test reports and highlight the key results and insights. The final report does not need to repeat the previous reports in their entirety. The design and requirements of the OS and DS, all test reports and the final report are the centerpiece deliverables desired from Gambit Program performers.

Phase 1 and 2 Performers should complete a Test Readiness Review (TRR) prior to each major activity and complete a Post Test Data Review (PTDR) and test report after each major test activity. At a minimum, the test report should include details on the test article, test conditions, results, and lessons learned.

C. Proposal Expectations

Proposals should include an initial OS concept that provides assessments of the OS’ ability to meet the objectives defined in the classified addendum. In addition, proposals should include details on an initial DS concept. Proposals should clearly describe the traceability between the OS propulsion subsystem and the DS freejet test article. In particular, the DS should include an OS-traceable forebody and propulsion subsystem—defined as the inlet, isolator, combustor, and nozzle. The forebody should match the outer mold line of the OS but does not need to be flight weight. To show traceability to the OS propulsion subsystem requirements, the DS propulsion subsystem should be flight weight and include features that will be needed for a future flight test.

At a minimum, this should include flight-weight actuation and combustor thermal management as well as OS-traceable ignition hardware. The DS freejet testing should validate the design’s cycle deck, thermal management, thermo-structural performance, and other design-critical analyses.

Development and demonstration of the DS propulsion subsystem is expected to be a major step forward in the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of RDEs. In particular, RDE work to date has largely focused on heavyweight components at scales and conditions that are not directly traceable to a weapon system. In comparison, the DS is expected to be weapon-scale, tested at weapon-flight conditions, and be flight-weight. Proposals should describe the proposer’s previous experience with RDEs and assess the present TRL of the technologies incorporated in the proposer’s DS approach. Proposals should clearly assess the risks with developing the proposed DS design. Further, proposals should include risk mitigation plans for each risk identified. The risk mitigation strategies should be integrated into the proposed schedule and show an executable path to successfully demonstrating the ability of ram-RDEs to meet the mission requirements derived from the performer’s OS concept by the end of Phase 2. Risk mitigation strategies could include early testing of simplified hardware and parallel paths for higher risk technologies, among others.

If proposers intend to utilize Government facilities for test activities, proposers should coordinate the proposed activities directly with the Government facilities prior to submitting their proposal.

If proposers request Government facilities be provided as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), proposers should seek to include a letter of commitment from the facility indicating their ability to support the proposed test requirements and schedule as well as an estimate for the cost of the test activities. This documentation will aid the Government’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the proposer’s integrated schedule and overall cost. Proposers interested in utilizing the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Aerospace Systems Directorate facilities for test activities should coordinate directly with Dr. Alex Schumaker at stephen.schumaker.1@us.af.mil.

D. Management Expectations

The program management approach should identify and track technical risks and establish risk mitigation approaches early and continuously throughout the program.

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 for targeted technical disciplines, for example, systems engineering, integration, modeling & simulation, etc. The performers are expected to interface with the Government teams via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level, and quarterly program management and technical reviews. In particular, proposers should incorporate a streamlined method to share unclassified and classified data between the performer and Government teams to maximize collaboration opportunities.

In addition to major reviews, proposals should include Quarterly Program Reviews (QPRs).

These reviews should cover the status of the program budget and schedule at an appropriate level of the work breakdown structure to communicate program health and progress of tasks across the program. In particular, this should include status of budget and schedule performance against the established baseline plan. QPRs should also include a review of current technical activities such as design, procurement, and testing activities. As appropriate, the QPR can be combined with other major reviews to avoid unnecessarily repeating information in separate reviews.

E. Major Review Expectations

Major reviews are important events that give the Government insight into the design, provide opportunities to influence the design, and determine whether the performer is ready for the next step in the project. Performers should not hold a design review before they are ready and should not move on to the next step in the project until the intent of the design review is adequately addressed or adjudicated. Proposals should state initial sets of entrance and exit criteria for each review in their proposal so the Government can evaluate the adequacy of the proposer’s gating process for major reviews.

Performers should utilize recognized industry or military standards (e.g., Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) guidelines available at https://www.dau.edu/tools/dag) to guide the specific content and entrance and exit criteria for each review as appropriate for the proposed technology demonstration effort. Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. The specific entrance and exit criteria 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. Proposals should discuss their design review content and include entrance and exit criteria for each review. These aspects will be evaluated by the Government to assess mailto:stephen.schumaker.1@us.af.mil https://www.dau.edu/tools/dag the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. Specific expectations for the major reviews are outlined below.

General Review Expectations

Requirements Development - A complete set of interfaces, system performance, and design requirements is established at the appropriate level of the system hierarchy (see Figure 2) for the subject review.

Design Definition - The design of the system is established at the appropriate level 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.

Phase 1 Review Descriptions and Expectations

OS CoDR – This review should document the OS and include the following information, at a minimum:

Establish OS concept of operations (CONOPS) and documentation that all system requirements are traceable with supporting analysis, trade studies or other substantiating documentation and sources.

Detailed description of design and associated system and subsystem capabilities document for an OS concept including the air vehicle, propulsion system, booster, materials, payload, Guidance Navigation and Control (GNC), power, etc. Any system concept shortfalls in capability to date, down to the major subsystem level, are identified versus the program objectives.

Mass properties are defined, substantiated and contain appropriate margin to meet design requirements based on design maturity.

OS operational analysis (OA) and technology trade studies to develop a preferred conceptual design. (OA methodology and details provided in classified addendum).

Utilize the OA results to inform/update the OS conceptual design and requirements.

Identify OS areas of high risk and critical enabling technologies to formulate an overarching technology maturation strategy. Risks are identified and stated at root cause level, and scored (likelihood and consequence) with associated mitigation plans that include activity, timeframe, completion criteria, and resulting score for each mitigation step. This strategy shall include analysis and ground testing (e.g., direct connect and freejet) as required to mature and demonstrate the performance of critical technologies and system performance achievable through the integration of those technologies. The strategy should also include innovative means to reduce demonstration system and projected operational system costs, and include a manufacturing assessment for critical materials along with identifying gaps in material property databases.

Implement a technology maturation strategy into an affordable and executable Technology Maturation Plan (TMP).

Develop a system requirements document for the OS and ensure program objectives are clearly traceable to the system level objective capabilities in the classified addendum.

Ensure system internal/external interfaces and requirements are clearly defined and the baseline conceptual design closes around the defined system functional/performance/interface requirements showing clear traceability between system design features/solutions and system requirements.

Conduct rough order of magnitude cost estimates that are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics provided in the classified addendum. Ensure the System concept provides a cost-effective, operationally-effective and technically feasible solution that meets the performance objectives in the classified addendum at an acceptable level of risk.

Security and classification requirements/constraints have been incorporated and addressed.

Generate 3D computer-aided design (CAD) physical layout of the OS to the component level, with block diagrams and schematics for key areas

Entrance and exit criteria for the CoDR/SRR have been finalized and agreed to by the Government 1 month prior to CoDR/SRR. This shall include a system capability review, system requirements and conceptual design proposal for Government review and approval.

DS SRR – This review should establish the DS system requirements, and include the following information, at a minimum:

Establish DS concept of operations (CONOPS) and documentation that all system requirements are traceable with supporting analysis, trade studies or other substantiating documentation and sources.

Develop a system requirements document for the DS and document the traceability of the DS propulsion subsystem requirements to the OS propulsion subsystem. The requirements for the DS will be to validate the performance of the propulsion system to ensure the OS if feasible, effective and affordable.

Entrance and Exit criteria for the CoDR/SRR have been agreed to by the Government 1 month prior to CoDR/SRR. This shall include a system capability review, system requirements and conceptual design proposal for Government review and approval.

DS CoDR – This review should document the DS conceptual design and include the following information, at a minimum:

Establish the Gambit DS conceptual baseline by demonstrating that all subsystem requirements are traceable to the system requirements. Substantiate t the design meets the system requirements through supporting analysis, trade studies, or other substantiating documentation and sources. Provide a system capabilities document for the DS concept including the propulsion system, materials, instrumentation, power, etc. The performer shall substantiate t a complete set of system functions have been identified and demonstrate those functions have been translated into an appropriate set of system requirements.

Identify DS areas of high risk and critical enabling technologies to feed into the overarching technology maturation strategy. This strategy shall include analysis and ground testing (e.g., direct connect and freejet) as required to mature and demonstrate the performance of critical technologies and system performance achievable through the integration of those technologies. The strategy should also include innovative means to reduce demonstration system and projected operational system costs.

Update the system requirements document for the DS and ensure program objectives are clearly traceable. Ensure system internal/external interfaces and requirements are clearly defined, and the baseline conceptual design closes around the defined system functional/performance/interface requirements, showing clear traceability between system design features/solutions and system requirements.

Traceability of the DS to the OS is documented, including deviations/differences between the OS and DS.

Update the technology maturation strategy and the TMP.

Develop a system requirements document for the DS.

Develop an interface control document (ICD) for the DS.

Conduct rough order of magnitude cost estimates that are documented and show a feasible path to meet OS cost metrics defined in the classified addendum.

Identify ground test facilities for risk reduction testing and substantiate the facilities’ ability to meet planned test requirements and schedule.

Define assembly, integration, and test approach for hardware and software. Describe the required test-unique support software, hardware, facilities (including any GFE), and other resources, testing limitations, and the interrelationship of these items including schedule alignment with the program Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

Generate 3D CAD physical layout of the DS to the component level, with block diagrams and schematics for key areas.

IMS adequately identifies the critical path, all major milestones, and is resourced at reasonable levels, based on realistic performance/efficiency expectations.

Entrance and Exit criteria for the CoDR have been finalized and agreed to by the Government 1 month prior to CoDR and all OS CoDR/DS SRR actions are closed. The performer shall present the system capabilities, system requirements and system conceptual design for approval and baseline.

DS PDR – This review should document the preliminary design for the DS and include the following information, at a minimum:

Update the Gambit OS concept and DS requirements derived from the OS concept as required based on preliminary design analyses and test results. Update the traceability of the DS to the OS and document deviations/differences.

Mature the Gambit DS conceptual design to a preliminary design level. Assess the allocated design documented in the system requirements. Complete preliminary design to Level 3 and ensure it closes around documented requirements, adequately demonstrates the DS achieves performance objectives identified in the classified addendum as well as cost constraints.

Requirements Development – Level 1-3 (see Figure 2) requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., analysis, integration, test, and demonstration) are identified.

Update/document the ICD from CoDR for the PDR design.

Refine the TMP for reducing risk of the critical technologies. Update the risk matrix.

Develop a software development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress.

Update status of ground test facilities to meet planned test requirements and schedule.

Update assembly, integration, and test approach for hardware and software, describe the required test-unique support software, hardware, facilities (including any GFE), and other resources, testing limitations, and the interrelationship of these items including schedule alignment with the program IMS.

Security and classification requirements/constraints for manufacturing (if necessary) and test execution have been incorporated into test plans and documents.

Update 3D CAD physical layout of the DS to the component level, with block diagrams and schematics for key areas.

Updated IMS adequately identifies the critical path, all major milestones, and is resourced at reasonable levels, based on realistic performance/efficiency expectations.

Update cost estimates to show a feasible path to meet OS cost metrics defined in the classified addendum.

Entrance and exit criteria for the PDR have been finalized and agreed to by the Government 1 month prior to PDR and all DS CoDR actions are closed. The performer shall present the system capabilities, system requirements and system preliminary design for approval and baseline.

Phase 2 Review Descriptions and Expectations

DS CDR – This review should document the detailed design for the DS and include the following information, at a minimum:

Update the Gambit OS concept as required based on detailed design analyses and test results and ensure the OS meets the program objectives. Update the traceability of the DS to the OS and document deviations/differences.

Mature detailed design of the Gambit DS to a critical design level. Ensure requirements are complete to the lowest assembly level and the performer has established a verification statement for each requirement.

Conduct modeling, simulation, and analysis at the appropriate level to substantiate readiness for design fabrication.

Develop/demonstrate critical technologies and systems and conduct risk reduction activities, including testing and analysis required to benchmark performance and substantiate a critical design maturity for the demonstration system.

Margins are documented and discussed in terms of uncertainties, especially as related to aerodynamics, propulsion, thermo-structural, mass properties, and power

Update 3D CAD physical layout of the DS to the component level, with block diagrams and schematics for key areas.

Procure, qualify, assemble, integrate, and test all hardware and software required for ground testing activities.

Update/document the ICD from PDR for the CDR design.

Refine the TMP for reducing risk of the critical technologies. Update the risk matrix.

Update the software development plan.

Security and classification requirements/constraints for manufacturing (if necessary) and test execution have been updated.

Update status of ground test facilities to meet desired test requirements and schedule.

Transportability, packaging, and handling considerations are provided, to include identification and review of parts or components that have a critical life or require special consideration.

Plan and execute ground testing to demonstrate technology maturity and benchmark technology and integrated system performance.

Document all test activities to include reduced data, analysis, conclusions, and lessons learned.

Assess the risks and maturity of the critical technologies that enable a Gambit OS.

Update cost estimates to show a feasible path to meet OS cost metrics defined in the classified addendum.

Updated IMS adequately identifies the critical path, all major milestones, and is resourced at reasonable levels, based on realistic performance/efficiency expectations.

Entrance and Exit criteria for the CDR have been finalized and agreed to by the

Government 1 month prior to CDR and all DS PDR actions are closed. The performer shall present the system capabilities, system requirements and system critical design for approval and baseline.

Delta-OS CoDR – This review should document the updated OS concept, with lessons learned from the Freejet testing, that could form the basis for a follow-on weapon-development program

Updated OS conceptual design based on learning from analysis and testing in Phases 1 and 2.

Updated OS CONOPS and documentation that all system requirements are traceable with supporting analysis, trade studies or other substantiating documentation and sources.

Updated system capabilities document for an OS concept including the air vehicle, propulsion system, booster, materials, payload, GNC, power, etc.

Updated OS OA showing viability of the OS concept to meet the system requirements.

Update the TMP to enable acquisition of OS weapons in a follow-on program. TMP should include path to mature the OS weapon from the end of Gambit Phase 2 through developmental test of the OS weapon system. Assess the risks and maturity of the critical technologies that enable a Gambit OS.

Provide a Level 2 IMS showing major program milestones for a notional follow-on effort to develop and flight test the OS weapon system.

Conduct ROM cost estimates for an OS weapon system program.

Entrance and exit criteria for the CoDR have been finalized and agreed to by the

Government 1 month prior to CoDR. The performer shall present the system capabilities, system requirements and system conceptual design for approval and baseline.

Common Phase 1 and 2 Review Descriptions and Expectations

TRR (direct connect, inlet and Freejet Testing) - The TRRs verify that the planned tests meet the Government’s expectations of the necessary demonstration, by proving accomplishment of performance requirements prior to expending limited hardware. The TRR should be conducted substantially ahead of the demonstration to allow adjustments based on Government feedback.

Demonstration unit design and instrumentation for recording data associated with major performance requirements should be reviewed. Limitations of the test should be discussed and possible mitigations considered. Prior to the TRR, the performer should confirm the following criteria:

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

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

The test article(s) and the procedures and plans for their use have been submitted to the technical, safety and security entities responsible for evaluating the test.

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

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

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

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

Post-Test Data Reviews The performer shall conduct post-test data reviews with the Government program office team and subject matter experts, and integrated product team members as appropriate.

Post-test data reviews should include comparisons between pre-test predictions and test results, a summary of the results gathered during the test, post-test data analysis, and recommendations for future tests.

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, 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 Other Transactions, 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. § 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. 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.

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

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, such as all United States Enterprises to include:

Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses Accredited degree granting colleges and universities Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations

Additionally:

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

a) FFRDCs FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this solicitation in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

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.

3. Classified Proposals

For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A)), and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dcsa.mil.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the solicitation. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to http://www.dcsa.mil/ prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposer’s judgment and to prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.

Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.

If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the proposal must include:

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the solicitation evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.

If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

In addition to the security requirements stated in Section I.B, proposers shall be International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliant and have appropriate personnel clearances and facilities for processing and storing at least SECRET level information to propose to this BAA and execute the Gambit program. Further details are provided in the Classified Addendum.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Requesting Security Classification Guide, DD 254, and Classified Addendum

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

A formal request for the Gambit Security Classification Guide (SCG), a DD 254, and the BAA Classified Addendum may be e-mailed to HR001122S0048@darpa.mil. Requests should include, at a minimum:

the organization name;

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

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

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code;

statement of facility clearance and safeguarding capability and a valid address for receiving classified material at the SECRET level via express mail.

a valid address for receiving classified material at the SECRET//SAR level via express mail.

DARPA will provide the SCGs and DD 254 via encrypted e-mail or DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) (https://safe.apps.mil), a secure on-line document sharing service approved for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), or by classified email via the DSWAN or SAVANNAH networks.

The BAA Classified Addendum will be sent via express mail, DSWAN or SAVANNAH.

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 addendum package will be sent via registered mail. Further handling instructions will accompany the classified addendum.

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

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. All hard copies must be on 8½ inch by 11 inch paper with 1” margins. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

https://sam.gov/ http://www.darpa.mil/ https://safe.apps.mil/

1. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal.