HR001123S0004.pdf

HR001123S0004

Broad Agency Announcement

Persistent Optical Wireless Energy Relay (POWER)

DARPA TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

October 21, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Energy Web Dominance (EWD) Vision B. POWER Background C. Program Description D. Program Execution

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 E. DARPA Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative (EEI)

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 – Persistent Optical Wireless Energy Relay (POWER) Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001123S0004 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Posting Date October 21, 2022 o FAQ/Questions Due: November 4, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) o Abstract Due Date: November 7, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. ET o Proposal Due Date: December 22, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. ET

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The goal of the POWER program is to develop and demonstrate a high-altitude optical relay. This relay will have the characteristics necessary for use in a larger, scalable wireless power beaming network.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – Phase 1: Up to $33M across multiple performers.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

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

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

HR001123S0004@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001123S0004

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001123S0004@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals to demonstrate effective optical power beaming relays. These relay nodes should have the characteristics necessary for use in a larger, scalable airborne wireless power beaming network.

The larger network will provide a resilient, multipath alternative for expeditionary energy transport. It will also enable small yet persistent air platforms to accomplish a wide range of military missions.

DARPA envisions the POWER program performers will create novel integrations of optical technologies to create an airborne relay capable of redirection, wavefront correction, and energy harvesting of optical beams. The aim of the final demonstration is to use three airborne relay nodes, hosted by existing platforms, to transmit energy from a ground source laser up to high altitude for long-range efficiency, and back down to a ground receiver 200 kilometers away. It is envisioned that the platforms will be operating at or around 60,000 feet to minimize atmospheric losses and enhance relay survivability. Efficient and precise redirection is necessary to avoid platform thermal challenges and to ensure the relayed beam effectively illuminates the desired target. To account for degradation of beam quality as the beam transits atmospheric disturbances, the relay must be able to correct the optical wavefront as needed to achieve system efficiency goals. Finally, the relays must be able to selectively harvest energy from the optical beam to provide on-board auxiliary power and thereby demonstrate necessary characteristics for future indefinitely persistent relay platforms. Proposals that leverage existing and emerging optical technologies in a novel way to achieve program goals in an effective low size, weight, power, and cost package are encouraged.

A. Energy Web Dominance (EWD) Vision Energy is a fundamental currency in the battlespace. It is central to causing and transporting military effects. Recognizing energy as a key aspect of warfare provides a new optimization surface where we can balance energy generation, storage, and distribution to more effectively achieve military objectives. In this way, generating and delivering military effects can be seen as an interconnected web of energy transactions. Dominating the energy web to more rapidly and reliably move energy through the battlespace and deliver military effects is the essence of warfare. We perceive an opportunity for significant disruption by leveraging power beaming for near- instantaneous energy transport in a resilient, multi-path network.

Today, expeditionary energy is primarily transported using liquid fuels. Liquid fuel shipment is platform-centric, using large, slow, vulnerable platforms that require significant fixed infrastructure. Reconstitution time for replacing damaged or destroyed tanker ships or ports is measured on the order of days, weeks, or even months. The linear chains of energy transactions required in legacy transport are brittle, meaning that loss of a single platform leads to significant system-level degradation. Legacy methods of energy transport that were once quite effective such as air-to-air refueling and naval underway replenishment are directly being targeted by adversary nations. In contested environments, the status quo carries unacceptable risks against emerging threats.

Wireless power is a key to unlocking novel platforms and capabilities, and to revolutionizing flexible effects delivery. The optical relays aimed for development via the POWER program are a critical hardware component for optical power beaming links. Relays more generally are a necessary component for creating flexible, scalable networks. Other power transfer modalities such as radio frequency or acoustic waves are suitable in other environments and are the focus of ongoing DARPA research that may lead to future programs, but are beyond the scope of POWER. Ultimately, more dynamic energy transport should be expanded to air, space, maritime, land, and undersea domains for maximum impact. Each effort within the Energy Web Dominance portfolio, such as POWER, focuses on key enabling technologies to continue to mature towards this larger vision. A possible depiction of future networked energy is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Depiction of the EWD vision, focusing on POWER nodes as a backbone to the network.

B. POWER Background POWER is a meaningful step toward building a new, more resilient energy transport network.

We believe the next breakthrough opportunity is leveraging optical power beaming at high altitude for energy delivery over significant distances. A far-reaching wireless energy network would enable robust connections between secure energy sources and places of high need. Speed-of-light energy transport through a multipath network enables rapid reconstitution under attack, graceful degradation, and maximum resilience. Energy can be rerouted through the network in a matter of seconds or minutes, and full capability can be restored by replacing nodes in minutes or hours. Furthermore, an established optical power network over a large geographical area allows for immediate redirection and focusing of military effects. This disruptive flexibility will enable a paradigm shift in tactics as commanders can pivot capability nearly instantaneously without reconfiguring supply lines.

The reduction of dependency on fuel, its delivery, and associated storage capacity allows us to think differently about platforms by no longer tying platform size and fuel capacity to capabilities. This creates a framework for cost-effective platforms, operating at long ranges with quantity to overwhelm contested environments or enhance mission flexibility. The nodes in this network can be small and thus relatively inexpensive, while also having significant capability such as mobility, indefinite persistence, and high power available for payloads.

POWER is the next important step to enabling energy web dominance by developing effective relays capable of creating the wireless supply lines for distributed systems at meaningful ranges.

While point-to-point power beaming continues to mature, relays unlock network capabilities for scalable range and energy throughput. High-altitude relays enable the combination of ground-based lasers with high-altitude beam propagation. This combination mitigates the thermal challenges of airborne lasers while also allowing for efficient long-range propagation through the thin, stable upper atmosphere. (reference Figure 2)

Figure 2: POWER Operational Vision.

C. Program Description The goal of the POWER program is to design and demonstrate airborne optical energy relays.

The principal technical challenges will be to develop and demonstrate a payload capable of redirecting optical energy transmissions, correcting wavefronts to maximize beam quality at each relay, and selectively harvesting energy for platform power.

Through demonstrations and other forms of test and evaluation, the performers are expected to validate performance of a demonstration system capable of meeting all of the POWER key program metrics to include (see figure 3):

1) 200 km transmission range (measured between ground sites)

2) 10kW of laser energy delivered to the final ground node if using the 50kW source laser (assuming 50% conversion efficiency this equates to the program goal of 5kW of electric power, ground receiver or measurement device will be provided by the government team)

3) Transmission through 3 airborne relay nodes

4) At least 1kW of throttleable energy harvesting simultaneously at each of the three airborne nodes.

The designs will be subject to the following constraints:

1) All system apertures less than 1 meter diameter

2) Demonstration system compatible with existing airframes

3) Compatible with operations at high altitude (60kft or higher) to minimize atmospheric losses.

Figure 3: Anticipated POWER final demonstration

The POWER program is a three-phase development effort, culminating in a compelling flight demonstration of a relay payload that shows the feasibility and applicability of wireless energy relays. Throughout the design process, the performers will conduct regular analysis of their design and employment approach to substantiate the ability of the design to meet the program goals. Independent Government analysis will also be conducted to validate performer designs throughout the program. The nominal program plan is depicted in Figure 2. This BAA specifically focuses on a detailed definition of Phase 1, and summarizes what DARPA will expect from performers in future phases of POWER.

Figure 4: POWER full program plan

For the purposes of evaluating performers’ approaches to the entire program vision, the Government requests a full Phase 1 plan and cost definition, as well as a basic Phase 2 Statement of Work (SOW) and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for Phase 2. The ability to lay a foundation for the envisioned final Phase 3 demonstration should be apparent in the Phase 1 technical proposal. Details of phases beyond Phase 1 are provided purely for the generation of a ROM and for program vision clarity.

For the remainder of this BAA, and for program purposes, the POWER system refers to the payload built within this effort to be flown on an existing aircraft during demonstrations. The optimized relay platform refers to the conceptual design effort for a novel, future aircraft incorporating POWER technologies that will be developed through a conceptual design review during this program.

1. Phase 1 (Preliminary Design) Phase 1 is a 20-month base effort, with an additional 3-month contracted option for a total possible 23-month period of performance. The principal activities during Phase 1 are technology maturation, relay payload design, system risk reduction, and conceptual relay platform design.

Performers will conduct detailed trade studies on the system design needed to achieve the program metrics and present quantitative analyses of conceptual integrations within 6 months of kickoff as part of a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR 1) of the demonstration system.

Following CoDR 1, performers will enter into early risk reduction campaigns in the form of laboratory or subscale demonstrations of novel approaches, while concurrently maturing the integrated relay design to a preliminary design. Phase 1 will conclude with a Preliminary Design

Review (PDR) informed by risk reduction activities in the areas of the highest technical risk for each program design.

To the maximum extent possible, risk reduction activities should include demonstrations of component-level technologies in the areas of redirection, correction, harvesting, laser safety, and pointing accuracy. Performers should prioritize risk reduction activities based on the highest risk areas associated with their particular design choices. Phase 1 contracts will include a 3-month option for additional risk-reduction activities post-PDR, to be defined by the performer team in their proposal for this option.

In parallel with the design of a demonstration payload and risk reduction activities, performers will also design a future conceptual air platform, optimized to integrate the developed relay technologies in a high-altitude platform. This conceptual design should leverage the advantages of offboarding power generation and storage to develop a novel low-cost platform suitable for production in large quantities. Integrated system performance should be modeled to demonstrate the trade between power requirements for each air platform and resulting system performance.

For example, it is expected that a higher speed air platform will require more harvested energy which decreases relay power throughput but increases the range of environments where the platform could operate and decreases reconstitution time if a node is lost. The conceptual design should address rapid link acquisition, field of regard, concepts of operation, beam multiplexing, safety interlocks, and thermal management. The supporting analysis and approach will be demonstrated through a conceptual design review (CoDR 2) during Phase 1.

2. Phase 2 (Detailed Design & Node Demonstration) Phase 2 is a 15-month effort that seeks to rapidly mature the POWER system definition and build a node for an initial low-power demonstration of the relay. Performers will complete the certification processes for the POWER demonstration, complete integration of one (1) POWER node into or onto its host platform, and conduct a low-power airborne test in Phase 2. The low-power airborne test should provide sufficient confidence in the ability of the performer to achieve final airborne demonstration objectives, and verify that the demonstration design has the characteristics necessary for transition into a scalable operational energy network for DoD. A depiction of the expected low-power airborne test is provided below.

Figure 5: Envisioned Phase 2 demonstration

Proposers must achieve a stores certification for the use of their POWER system on an existing air vehicle. It will be necessary for the proposer to develop an airworthiness/stores certification plan to ensure that all necessary approvals are received in time to support flight test. Proposers must also plan to comply with all necessary safety requirements from the laser clearinghouse and potential test ranges. Airworthiness/stores certification of the system is expected to occur in Phase 2 in support of the low-power airborne demonstration. The certification approach, test planning considerations, and any applicable performer internal test processes should be described within the proposal.

3. Phase 3 (Muli-Node System Demonstration) Phase 3 comprises the build and integration of additional relay nodes and a final demonstration (or demonstrations) of multiple airborne nodes relaying power to a ground receiver and demonstrating that the as-built system meets the POWER program metrics. Efficiency and performance will be measured in ground-to-air, air-to-air, and air-to-ground links. A notional depiction of the demo is shown below.

Figure 6: Envisioned Phase 3 demonstration

System availability is an important quantifiable metric and is defined by the percent of time that the system is actively beaming power with respect to the amount of time that the system is requesting power. This should be as close to 100% as the test conditions allow. We realize that the test environment as well as limitations in flight paths/trajectories will inject uncertainty into the demonstrated availability, so this will be primarily evaluated by secondary metrics such as link acquisition time and link resilience to minor disruptions. Proposals should explore methods for rapid acquisition and link management to maximize availability.

The Phase 3 effort is expected to take 16 months and includes submission of a final report, which provides detailed evaluations of each aspect of the demonstration activity and the tested systems performance; the major remaining technical risks that must be addressed as part of a transition to a DoD partner; and quantitative predictions of the performance of a proliferated network of relay nodes informed by test data.

4. Supporting Program Information DARPA envisions that the final (Phase 3) demonstration will be conducted at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) utilizing the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF). The

HELSTF facility will provide substantial controlled airspace as well as a beam director and high-power laser suitable for demonstrating the POWER program goals. The program goals and expected efficiencies are baselined off the currently available HELSTF 50kW class laser. The beam director provides at least a 60 cm transmit aperture with adaptive optics for compensation of atmospheric conditions on the initial ground-to-air link. This provides the capability to select beam spot size (focus) at the first aerial node. The facility is expected to have more than one option for the laser at the time of the Phase 3 demonstration, with wavelengths in the range of 1.03um to 1.08um. Other alternatives for beam directors may be available as well. Performers will be expected to coordinate with HELSTF for use of the optimum laser and beam director combination and to coordinate laser safety considerations for the demonstration. Other laser sources and beam directors may be proposed; but the proposal must substantiate a clear demonstration plan that fits within the POWER timeline. Representative and scalable risk mitigation demonstrations prior to Phase 3 are expected. The specifics of those risk mitigation demonstrations should be addressed in the proposal and will be evaluated by the government to assess the adequacy of the risk reduction steps for the proposed design.

Along with utilization of the HELSTF facility, DARPA anticipates that the baseline platform for the final demonstration will be the RQ-4 Global Hawk. The wing pylons of the Global Hawks have a max weight of ~ 500 lb. (dependent on CG) and max payload diameter of 30” to avoid ground impact. Additionally, the Global Hawks have a number of internal payload bays; the largest, lower-facing bay can hold 700 lbs. Proposals that deviate from the provided host platform are acceptable but will need to provide an executable alternative demo plan. A layout and table of volumes for the internal bays on the Global Hawk are provided below.

Figure 7: Image of Global Hawk internal payload bays

Table 1: Volume dimensions for Global Hawk internal payload bays

Dimensions (in) Length Width Height

3 40 23 27 12 7 105 56 36 110 12 19 21 13 3 13 19 20 17 3.7 14 19 20 17 3.7 16 19 20 20 4.4 22 15 15 14 1.8 25 120 56 18 66

25-Deep 120 56 27 81 46 20 20 14 3.2 61 70 44 20 65

Payload Zone Number

Total Useable Volume (ft3)

Performers should implement contemporary software development best practices in developing the POWER system. This includes, but it is not limited to, statically and dynamically assessing the codebase to prevent and address deficiencies well-prior to functional testing. Approaches such as continuous integration and automated test case generation are strongly encouraged.

Software requirements and verification should be well-integrated into the overall systems engineering process. A "software-in-the-loop" development/testing environment allowing early software evaluation to be exercised outside of the end product hardware is highly desired.

POWER software is not required to be directly integrated into the software controlling any host platforms, but at minimum is expected to be evaluated from the perspective of system safety, security, and compatibility. For any re-used code, analysis and documentation must substantiate compatibility between the characteristics of the re-used code and the requirements of the POWER system. New code developed for any small embedded systems, such as microcontrollers or microcontroller/FPGA hybrids, should undergo the same level of rigor and scrutiny as new higher-level code. Any planned spiral development should be clearly articulated and demonstrate the appropriate requirement considerations for the different phases of the program.

An iterative development model, rather than a waterfall model, is expected.

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

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

Design Reviews: The Performer will execute appropriate program reviews. Program reviews may include conceptual design reviews (CoDR), system requirements review (SRR) preliminary design review (PDR) and/or a critical design review (CDR) 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://aaf.dau.edu/guidebooks/ 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 POWER program are outlined below, and should be incorporated into the performer’s comprehensive list of tailored design review criteria, which will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews. Any changes or updates to the entrance and exit criteria during phases must be provided to the Government and approved, as indicated in the deliverables table.

For the purposes of potential system level hierarchy to be addressed during program reviews please use the below chart as an example. Hierarchies may be adjusted and augmented as required by particular design choices. The examples here are not meant to suggest any particular design, but rather show the expected breakdown by level. The sample hierarchy stops at the level 3 component level, however definitions to the level 4 sub-component level will be required at points in the program.

https://aaf.dau.edu/guidebooks/

Figure 8: Example of POWER hierarchy definition.

POWER System CoDR/SRR Baseline Technologies - System baseline technologies and program risks are identified along with a preliminary plan to assess key subsystems. Imposing constraints are defined for the host platform identified by the Government or proposed by the performer.

Performance - Updated Tracked Program Metrics (TPMs) and system performance metrics are provided for the demonstration system and contrasted against program goals.

Any anticipated deviations in the flight demonstration that results in validation of different metrics should show a scalable approach to the POWER objectives.

Schedule - The updated Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to include planned testing and analysis timelines and envisioned Phase 1, 2, and 3 demonstration methodology is released.

Requirements Development – System (level 0), segment (level 1), subsystem (level 2), component (level 3) requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., analysis, integration, test, and demonstration) are identified. Interfaces are documented.

Size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) for beam redirectors and adaptive optics are defined.

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

Optimized Relay Platform CoDR

Level 3

Conceptual design of the optimized relay platform is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through initial design and traceability to program technology demonstrations.

Performer models are provided to the Government for independent analysis.

Initial cost analysis for fabrication of the optimized relay platform is completed. Cost analysis should be per unit with the expectancy that the relays would be built in large batches (~100 units)

Baseline approach to power reception and persistence through all flight regimes is identified, to include endurance when not receiving power.

Upper limits of power throughput and capabilities for an optimized relay platform operating in a scaled energy web are defined. Field of regard for both receive and transmit apertures are defined to support scaled energy web.

Concepts of operation defined to include system level performance, reconstitution times for replacing lost nodes, and flight paths optimized for expected field of regard.

PDR

• 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, definition of subsystem (level 2) interfaces, and meets size, weight, power and cost (SWaP-C) constraints. (See Figure 8)

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

• Provide verification statements for all design elements. Tests, modeling, analysis, and demonstrations will be identified.

• Interfaces at the subsystem level should be identified with accompanying interface control documents.

• 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.

Performers during Phase 1 are not anticipated to reach a CDR of the demonstration system within the effort awarded under this contract. The below details for CDR are listed for overall program planning purposes and for generation of a Phase 2 ROM but not to be considered as deliverables for the Phase 1 award.

CDR

• 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 achieves compliance with all associated requirements.

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

Optimized Relay Platform delta-CoDR

Updated conceptual design of the optimized relay platform based on more refined relay design. Approach is shown to be feasible through initial design and traceability to program technology demonstrations.

Updated performer models are provided to the Government for independent analysis.

Updated cost analysis for fabrication of the optimized relay platform is completed. Cost analysis should be per unit with the expectancy that the relays would be built in large batches (~100 units)

Updated approach to power reception and persistence through all flight regimes is identified, to include endurance when not receiving power.

Upper limits of power throughput and capabilities updated for an optimized relay platform operating in a scaled energy web are defined. Field of regard for both receive and transmit apertures are defined to support scaled energy web.

Update concepts of operation defined to include system level performance, reconstitution times for replacing lost nodes, and flight paths optimized for expected field of regard.

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.

Program Personnel. This BAA seeks well-balanced and expert teams to design an optical relay payload that is suitable for flight demonstration. This includes the conceptual design review of an optimized platform. Performers are encouraged to partner with platform design teams in to ensure that the demonstration relay designs can be practically integrated into a future optimized platform with relevant capabilities.

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 a procurement contract or Other Transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 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 detailed ROM and SOW for Phase 2. The 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).

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

Submission of 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 a 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 full proposals for future phases will be based on evaluation criteria to be specified in the proposal request and will potentially include consideration of Phase 1 performance, if any.

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.

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

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. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of this research for exclusive competition among these entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements

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

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy

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

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

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

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and

An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures

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

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

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

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

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

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

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

1. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal. Abstracts should follow the same general format as described for proposals (see Section IV.B.2, “Proposal Format”) but include ONLY Sections I and II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal.

The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed 10 pages. The maximum page count excludes the cover page in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section I, and official transmittal letter but does include any figures, tables, and charts. An official transmittal letter is not required.

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

2. Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of three parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 50 pages. Bracketed numbers (e.g., {5}) before each section denote recommended page limits.

Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and managerial issues. Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to

DARPA.

NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001123S0004);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

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

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

NONPROFIT”

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

Section II: Summary of Proposal

A. {2} Executive-level summary of technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation. In the proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III of the Technical and Management Proposal. The summary should also include a top-level schedule that outlines the proposer’s overall approach to executing proposed system development through demonstration testing.

B. {4} 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 maturation.

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

b. Technology Transition…