HR001123S0008-Amendment-01.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement

Beyond Linear Processing (BLiP)

STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001123S0008

Amendment 1

November 15, 2022

HR001123S0008

Summary of Amendment 1 Changes:

The purpose of this amendment is to revise the following:

On page 33: VII. Agency Contacts: Changed incorrect BAA Email from HR001122S0008 to HR001123S0008, including email address hyperlink.

On page 33: VIII. B. Frequently Asked Question (FAQs): Changed incorrect email address from HR001122S0008@darpa.mil to HR001123S0008@darpa.mil.

On page 33: VIII. B. Frequently Asked Question (FAQs): Changed incorrect BAA reference number from HR001122S0008 to HR001123S0008.

Revised text is highlighted in yellow in the document.

mailto:HR001123S0008@darpa.mil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Overview B. Program Metrics

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. 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 B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Proposers Day B. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) C. Collaborative Efforts/Teaming D. University Student and Researcher Funding

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Strategic Technology Office (STO) Funding Opportunity Title – Beyond Linear Processing (BLiP) Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001123S0008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates (All times are Eastern Time) o Proposers’ Day: October 28, 2022 o Posting Date: October 25, 2022 o Abstract Due Date and Time: November 9, 2022 by 4:00 PM o Questions Due Date and Time: November 16, 2022 by 4:00 PM o Proposal Due Date and Time: December 21, 2022 by 4:00 PM

BLiP is organized as an applied research program, intended to perform studies, design, development, and prototyping that will improve radar performance through the application of signal processing techniques that go beyond current linear processing methods. The BLiP program is directed toward general radar needs with a view to demonstrating feasibility and practicality of non-linear and iterative signal processing.

DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals for radar signal processing approaches that will develop novel techniques in the following focus areas: iterative and non-linear signal processing, non-repetitive waveforms and processing, multi-hypothesis track-before-detect and main-beam interference mitigation.

Multiple awards are anticipated Types of instruments that may be awarded -- Procurement Contract, or Other Transaction Additional information - https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/ Agency contact o The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001123S0008@darpa.mil

DARPA/STO

ATTN: HR001123S0008

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals for the Beyond Linear Processing (BLiP) program. Radar signal processing has evolved incrementally from processing in analog circuits to digital hardware implementation, firmware, and now implementation in software. Linear processing of the signal from the antenna to the detector has been retained in this evolution. The tremendous increase in processing capability enables a fresh look into radar signal processing and in particular the use of non-linear and iterative radar signal processing techniques, which have the potential to significantly improve radar performance such that smaller radar apertures and thus smaller platforms can provide equivalent capability. 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.

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 C.F.R. § 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.

This BAA encourages solutions from all responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government’s needs, including large and small businesses, non-traditional defense contractors as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 3014, and research institutions as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 638.

A. Program Overview

The theoretical foundation for radar signal processing is the optimal detection of a single, known signal in Gaussian noise. This results in linear signal processing up to the detection and track stages. In practice, these foundational assumptions are not true and, as a result, ad-hoc modification of the optimal processing are used to address multiple targets, the lack of knowledge of the parameters of the single desired signal, and non-Gaussian noise, clutter and interference. Linear signal processing is attractive because the theory is well-developed and understood and because linear processing can be factored into a chain of semi-independent processing blocks with relatively straightforward implementation. The development of extremely high performance Graphical-Processing-Unit (GPU) commercial computing enables increasing the processing performance by several orders of magnitude over what is required to perform linear processing and justifies a fresh examination of the end-to-end radar signal processing.

BLiP is based on the premise that when more physically realistic target and environment models are used as the basis for the radar estimation and detection problem, then solutions require non-linear and iterative signal processing. When non-linear methods are implemented for individual processing stages then the output of that processing block no longer provides statistics consistent with linear processing and that are expected by the following processing stages. For example, a sparse-representation Doppler processing block would not provide data to a constant false-alarm rate (CFAR) detection stage with the same statistical properties that a linear processor provides and that most CFAR detectors are designed for. The incompatibility with interfaces results in an inability to evolve current radar signal processing by upgrading or replacing one processing block or stage at a time; end-to-end processing must be addressed to go beyond the current linear processing.

BLiP will address the current immaturity of non-linear and iterative signal processing methods by developing and testing an end-to-end processing chain in real-time. Over the course of this program, the processing chains will be developed, analyzed, implemented and tested initially through non-real-time laboratory testing and culminating in real-time implementation and full-scale field testing.

BLiP is organized as an applied research program, intended to perform studies, design, development, and prototyping that will improve radar performance. The BLiP program is directed toward general radar needs with a view to demonstrating feasibility and practicality of non-linear and iterative processing. Key technical challenges for BLiP will be the development, understanding, and optimization of the signal processing chain, and the practical aspects of implementing BLiP algorithms in real-time.

1. Development and Focus Areas

DARPA is expecting proposers to address the full end-to-end radar signal processing chain in their proposal. To guide BLiP development, four Focus Areas are described below. At a minimum, proposers should address these topics, but they are not intended to limit innovative approaches to radar signal processing.

Focus Area One: Non-linear signal processing. Implement and test the iterative and/or non-linear processing that transforms information from the aperture’s raw digitized Radio Frequency (RF) streams to a format that can be used by a target parameter estimation and tracking capability.

Viable approaches to non-linear processing may include, but are not limited to:

Maximum likelihood Sparse representation Least squares representation L1, L2 decomposition Non-linear noise excision Burg extrapolation

Offerors may use different approaches to different aspects of the problem. Or, a single approach can be applied to the full dimensionality of the radar processing problem. As described in the introduction, the performance and use of many of these algorithms is relatively immature. Under this focus area, research will be performed to understand algorithm aspects such as convergence properties, statistical properties, impact of model mismatch, computational complexity reduction and finite-precision effects.

Focus Area Two: Non-repetitive waveforms and processing. This focus area is an extension of Focus Area One with an addition being the use of non-repetitive waveforms.

The combination of non-repetitive waveforms and non-linear processing is expected to overcome losses due to blind ranges or speeds and to mitigate or reduce the need for fill pulses. Much as non-uniform sampling of time series and suitable processing are able to determine waveform spectral content, non-uniform temporal sampling of the radar environment and suitable processing should be able to determine range and Doppler of the radar returns. This focus area includes both waveform design and the processing.

Waveform design will be pre-planned, that is, scripted, rather than being adaptive to the environment.

Focus Area Three: Multi-hypothesis track-before-detect. Recent developments are able to reduce the needed target Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) by 7 or 8 dB relative to current processing with detection followed by multiple-hypothesis tracking. Multi-hypothesis track-before-detect potentially overcomes the poor performance in the presence of target dynamics that is experienced by Hough-transform based track-before-detect algorithms.

Focus Area Four: Main-beam interference mitigation. With the increasing pressure on RF spectrum usage, it is clear that radars and communications systems will be sharing the same spectrum. Over the longer term this manifests as the need to jointly operate in the same spectrum; radars must perform well even with communications emitter signals in the main beam. Communications systems have been sharing the same channels for many years. One approach to ensuring robust communications systems performance with multiple signals is to estimate the undesired waveform and subtract it from the desired, perhaps weaker signal. BLiP will perform research in mitigating main-beam interference.

These four focus areas are used to guide BLiP development, but none of these areas stand alone.

An important goal of the program is to develop the end-to-end radar signal processing chain and to mature algorithms by implementation and test in the real-time radar testbed. As noted, there are multiple approaches to each of these areas, and independent of whether the method is gridded or not, the expectation is that track accuracy will be produced equivalent to conventional linear signal processing methods.

2. Data and Test Approach

Data from a test radar system will be provided to performers to aid in their development and for use in testing. During the initial phase of the BLiP program, performers will self-assess and present their algorithm’s performance at regular status updates and Quarterly Program Reviews (QPR). This self-assessment will be in accordance with the program and performer-defined metrics described later in this BAA and may use simulation, performer-defined data sets, or data sets provided by the Government. The intent of these presentations is to show program progress.

Near the end of Phase 1, the BLiP performer developments will be compared to the performance of a conventional linear signal processing baseline implemented by the Government team. This comparison will be performed by the Government team using a set of data that was not made openly available. This independent review approach ensures that performers don’t over-optimize their development to a particular data set. To support the independent review, performers will provide a technical data package consisting of their code, any compiled modules, and instructions for executing/testing the code with the data sets provided by the Government.

The radar that will be used to generate the test data and that will be used for real-time testing of the performer algorithms will be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) Phased Array Radar (PAR)1. The software-defined PAR was built as a prototype for a next generation multi-function weather and air traffic control sensor. This civil radar has a modern architecture consisting of 24 overlapped dual-polarization receive subarrays, and a two-channel waveform generator/exciter to provide arbitrary polarization waveforms on transmit. Signals received by the 24 subarrays are each passed through software-defined digital receivers. The digital in-phase/quadrature (IQ) data is currently passed to a signal processing cluster where beamforming and weather information processing is accomplished. BLiP will record the IQ data stream prior to full array beamforming to provide data for the performers. Later in the program, a high-performance GPU-based signal processor will be installed at the PAR. The processor will access this IQ data stream and make the data available to performer’s software for real-time demonstration of beyond linear processing feasibility.

The NOAA PAR in weather surveillance mode is typically operated with waveforms that have a 6 MHz bandwidth and with dwells separated by 16 MHz. The system supports nearly arbitrary waveforms and can utilize much wider bandwidth waveforms. Performer development must be flexible for radar parameters including operating bandwidth up to 30 MHz, pulse width, dwell length and Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF). Proposers should indicate any expected limitations on radar operating parameters.

Data sets will utilize the radar in a surveillance mode with scanning pencil beams and PRF, dwell lengths, sector coverage, etc. consistent with aircraft targets and a revisit rate on the order of 5 seconds. Other modes of collection will be considered during the data collection planned at 6 months.

1 This radar is also known as the Multi-function Phased Array Radar (MPAR) Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD). The current radar is an advanced solid-state radar that replaced the earlier SPY-1 based Phased Array Radar (PAR) in 2018. Additional information on this radar can be found at:

1) https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/tools/radar/atd/

2) https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/videogateway.cgi/id/51144?recordingid=51144&uniqueid=Paper

353456&entry_password=null

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C2bKQlvRls

4) Kurt Hondl, Mark Weber, NOAA’s Meteorological Phase Array Radar Research Program, 2019 IEEE

International Symposium on Phased Array System & Technology (PAST), 2019.

5) J. Herd et al., "Multifunction Phased Array Radar (MPAR) for aircraft and weather surveillance” 2010

IEEE Radar Conference, 2010, pp. 945-948

6) E. Kowalski, D. Conway, A. Morris and C. Parry, "Multifunction Phased Array Radar Advanced

Technology Demonstrator (MPAR ATD) Nearfield Testing and Fielding," 2019 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarConf), 2019 , https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/tools/radar/atd/ https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/videogateway.cgi/id/51144?recordingid=51144&uniqueid=Paper353456&entry_password=null https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/videogateway.cgi/id/51144?recordingid=51144&uniqueid=Paper353456&entry_password=null https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C2bKQlvRls

All data collections using the NOAA PAR will be consistent with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) frequency authorization.

Using the software-defined aspect of the PAR, test scenarios will include radar aperture configurations with different numbers of subarrays turned on and off. A comparison of the BLiP algorithms using portions of the aperture to a conventional implementation by the Government team using the full aperture forms the basis for the program metrics. These metrics are intended to assess track performance and the comparison is intended to be performed with equivalent performance measures such as probability of track, probability of false track, track update rate, track accuracy, etc.

The signal processor that will be procured by the Government team will consist of a GPU compute cluster along with a small number of servers. The specifics of the design will be provided at kickoff. For planning purposes, proposers may assume that the GPU cluster capabilities are consistent with the recently announced NVIDIA DGX-H100. This will be combined with two or more additional servers containing high core-count processors. The operating system will be Red Hat® Enterprise Linux. Accessing the DGX-H100’s 7.7PFLOPS of performance requires use of tensor core programming and attention to the processing precision.

Initial real-time prototyping and development can be accomplished using either performer resources or through the use of on-line resources such as the Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud. During Phase 2 the Government will make remote access available to a copy of the signal processor that will be installed at the PAR for integration and test. Final integration and test will occur at the NSSL. Testing for integration will use simulated/injected targets and interference along with targets-of-opportunity. After integration testing, free-space tests will include instrumented air vehicles.

Government-led test events will include injection of synthetic targets, over-the-air collection on targets of opportunity, and collection on a Global Positioning System (GPS)-equipped aircraft.

An independent assessment team with experts from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), and Army Research Lab (ARL) will provide test analysis and oversight, and participate in technical reviews and assessments.

3. Phase 1 (Base) Description

The BLiP program will be executed in two phases over 24 months, consisting of base (Phase 1, 15 months) and option (Phase 2, 9 months) periods.

Phase 1 will focus on algorithm development relatively unconstrained by the need for real-time implementation. During this phase, performers will develop their algorithms and an off-line processing string. An initial dataset from the NOAA PAR will be provided to performers for analysis and development. Developers will self-assess initial performance. A non-real time data collection event will be held approximately 6 months after kickoff. Performer desires for specific data or waveforms will be factored into the test plan for this event. An independent performance assessment will start approximately 11 months after contract award. Performers will provide their source and executable code to the Government to enable this assessment.

During this phase performers are encouraged to prototype key aspects of their algorithm or processing string in a GPU to inform Phase 1 algorithm refinement and to reduce risk for the Phase 2 implementation. While there is no limit on the processing resources that can be utilized in Phase 1, a significant consideration in the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 is demonstration that there is a path to a real-time implementation.

Table 1 describes the deliverables expected during this phase, and Table 2 describes the expected program events/activities.

Table 1: Phase 1 Table of Deliverables.

Item Due Presentation materials for meetings and briefs 3 business days in advance of meeting Technical and financial Monthly Status Reports/briefs

Monthly

Technical data package (TDP) containing software/firmware prototypes and documentation required to utilize

Initial delivery due not later than 11 months after contract award (MACA).

Revisions/updates to the TDP as required.

Phase 1 written final report 15 MACA

Table 2: Phase 1 Events.

Event When Location Kickoff 2 weeks after contract award DARPA Monthly Status update Monthly MS Teams/telecon Quarterly Program Review 3, 6, 9, 15 MACA Government or performer facility Non-realtime data collection 6 MACA Norman, OK Demonstration of end-to-end processing chain

11 MACA (coincident with delivery of TDP)

Performer facility

The intent with these events and deliverables is to provide the Government with information showing progress that will then inform a decision on proceeding to a successful Phase 2.

4. Phase 2 (Option) Description

The purpose of Phase 2 is real-time implementation, test and demonstration of the BLiP algorithms in Government-purchased signal processing hardware installed at the NOAA PAR.

The final step for this option will be a field test demonstrating the capability and quantifying the performance of the BLiP signal processing chain relative to a more conventional processing chain. Performance with full-sized and reduced apertures will be demonstrated in real-time using the NOAA PAR.

Table 3 describes the deliverables expected during this phase, and Table 4 describes the expected program events/activities.

Table 3: Phase 2 Table of Deliverables.

Item Due Presentation materials for meetings and briefs 3 business days in advance of meeting Technical and financial Monthly Status Reports/briefs

Monthly

Technical data package containing software/firmware prototypes and documentation required to utilize prototype

Initial delivery not later than 7 months after option award (MAOA) Revisions/updates to the TDP as required.

Phase 2 written final report 9 MAOA

Table 4: Phase 2 Events.

Event When Location Kickoff 2 weeks after option award DARPA Monthly Status update Monthly MS Teams/telecon Quarterly Progress Review Software Architecture/ implementation Design Review

3, 6 MAOA Government or Performer facility

Test readiness review 7 MAOA (coincident with delivery of TDP)

Government or Performer facility

Realtime Test Event 8 MAOA Norman, OK

5. Program Schedule

A high-level schedule depicting the program phases and milestones is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: A high level schedule for the BLiP program.

FY23 FY24 FY25

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Phase 1 (15 months) Phase 2 (9 months)

Phase 1 : Non-linear and iterative algorithm development

• Signal processing chain development

• Performance, robustness investigation and verification

• Assessment and risk reduction for potential real-time

Phase 2 : Real-time development

• Implementation in testbed

• Tuning and optimization

• Demonstration

Contract Awards

Phase 1 Kickoff

Phase 2 Kickoff

Program Review Field Test/collection Site visit

Program Completion

24 months

TDP

Delivery

TDP

Delivery

6. Proposed Solutions

An ideal proposal will address the following technical aspects:

- The architecture for the processing including the algorithmic methods to be used.

- The underlying theoretical basis to the processing methods.

- An estimate of the performance gains expected by the proposed approach(es).

- Algorithm implementation and test approach.

- The use of simulation(s) to aid in development.

- If alternative data sets are to be used in development, a description of the unique aspect of that data and how it complements the NOAA PAR data.

- The software design that will be used for the real-time implementation.

- Risk assessment and mitigation approach.

- The approach to prototyping key aspects of the algorithm in Phase 1 to mitigate the risk of implementing in real-time in Phase 2.

- How the performance of the methods will be assessed at the engineering/developer level

(see Section B. Program Metrics below for required program metrics associated with this description).

- The approach to transitioning the results of the research beyond the prototyping and demonstration(s) of the BLiP Program.

7. Topics Not of Interest

The following topics are not within the BLiP program scope:

- Multi-statics. The program is only interested in techniques applied to processing monostatic data.

- Cognitive/closed-loop waveform design. Because of the difficulty required to implement transmitter control and verify safe and legal operation, closed-loop control of the transmitter is not within scope.

- Machine learning as an end-to-end approach to aperture/radar signal processing. Previous DARPA programs have addressed this approach. Machine learning may be an aspect of the processing, but is not an acceptable end-to-end processing approach.

- Development of individual isolated processing blocks or proposals that address a single Focus Area. Because of potential interactions in cascading non-linear signal processing blocks, only proposals that consider the full end-to-end processing needs are of interest.

- Radar hardware or testbed development. BLiP will provide recorded data sets and MATLAB™ scripts for reading the data. Real-time testing will occur in the NOAA PAR in a signal processing system provided by the Government.

- Modification of the NOAA PAR aperture or RF hardware.

- Approaches that rely on proprietary black-boxes. A minimum of Government purpose rights to the source codes and executables is expected.

B. Program Metrics

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed solution in achieving the stated program objectives, proposers should note that the Government hereby promulgates the following program metrics that will serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. Proposers should note that the Government has identified these goals with the intention of bounding the scope of effort, while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in proposing solutions to the stated problem. As noted below, proposers are required to submit additional metrics specific to their solution.

Table 5. Program Metrics Topic Phase 1 (Off-line) Phase 2 (Real-time2) Aperture area meeting equivalent track performance (high elevation) 3 <70% Threshold (T), < 50% Objective (O)

Aperture area meeting equivalent track performance (low elevation) 3 <50% (T), < 40% (O)

Main beam interference rejection 20dB Signal processing resources required4 < 7.7 PFLOPS (implemented)

These high-level program metrics will be assessed using analysis of recorded data in Phase 1.

During Phase 2, meeting these metrics will be demonstrated in real-time in a test at the NOAA PAR. Aperture area scaling is possible by enabling or disabling radar subarrays.

Performers should propose at least four (4) additional intermediate metrics that can be used to assist in understanding progress. Examples of such metrics include, but are not limited to, signal-to-noise ratio increase after different processing steps, convergence rate, root-mean-square error (RMSE), clutter improvement factor (CIF), sub-clutter visibility (SCV), mean optimal sub-pattern assignment (OSPA), signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) gains or losses, and polarization isolation. Depending upon the specific approach, more detailed analytic metrics might be appropriate as intermediate metrics; for example, expected and measured Poisson rates for background noise might be appropriate for sparse representation. Robustness to model error due, for example, to array manifold uncertainties may also factor into performer metrics.

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.

2 Real-time is defined here as signal processing the received data with a track reporting latency not to exceed 1s, and not dropping more than 5% of the dwell data.

3 Test conditions: 0dBsm target @100km, Ptrack=0.9, Pfalse track=1e-6 per range-Doppler bin per scan, Track time 5 minutes, 90 degree by 20-degree surveillance area, test environment dependent. High elevation: Clutter-to-noise ratio <0dB. Low elevation: Clutter-to-noise ratio up to 50dB.

4 Required signal processing: The testbed at NOAA is limited to 1 rack with cooling sufficient for ~15kW, (1x DGX-H100 @ 7.7PFLOPS, 2x high core count servers each with NVIDIA A100 GPU or better).

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 IV.B.3.d., “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, and the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. 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. Fundamental Research http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

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

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

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

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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

2. Other Applicants Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances. To meet the required control of BLiP CUI information, the awardee must be a U.S. organization. Subawardees need not be U.S.

organization provided that the subawardee is performing the fundamental research described in Section II. B.

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.

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

The Government requires that proposers Information Technology infrastructure be consistent with the work proposed to receive an award. Awardees and subawardees that will be working with CUI must have, or be able to acquire prior to contract award, an information system authorized to process CUI information IAW NIST SP 800-171 and DoDI 8582.01.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

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

1. Abstracts Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out of scope proposal. All proposers are required to use Attachment A: Abstract Template provided with this solicitation on www.sam.gov. Attachment B: Abstract Summary Slide Template may be submitted and if included must be in .ppt, .pptx or .pdf format and should be attached as a separate file to the submission.

The abstract provides a synopsis of the proposed project by including the following information:

The proposed technical approach The technical rationale supporting the ability to achieve the metrics The technical and programmatic risks The makeup of the technical team (including the facilities and any proposed subcontractors) High-level cost and schedule http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/ http://www.sam.gov/

Submitted abstracts shall not be longer than 5 pages with cover sheet, Table of Contents, Bibliography (optional) and any technical papers (optional) not counting against this limit.

DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea. If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all conforming full proposals using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any comments resulting from the review of an abstract.

Proposers should note that a favorable response to an abstract is not a guarantee that a proposal based on the abstract will ultimately be selected for award negotiation.

While it is DARPA policy to attempt to reply to abstracts within thirty calendar days, proposers to this solicitation may anticipate a response within approximately three weeks. These official notifications will be sent via email to the Technical POC and/or Administrative POC identified on the abstract coversheet.

2. Proposals 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 should consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of 3 parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The total number of pages in Volume 1 shall not exceed 20 pages with Section 1, the Bibliography (optional), and up to 3 reference papers (optional) not counting against this page limit.

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

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

(1) Section I: Administrative (no page limit)

(a) Cover Sheet per Attachment C.

(b) Official transmittal letter

(c) Table of Contents

(d) Proposal Summary Slides per Attachment D.

(2) Section II: Executive Summary of Proposal

This section provides an overview of the proposed work including technical rationale, technical approach, innovative claims, ongoing/prior work that this builds on, and program organization.

(3) Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

This 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.

A. Technical rationale, detailed technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation.

B. Innovative claims for the proposed research. This section should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

C. Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

D. A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable:

(1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year.

E. Statement of Work (SOW) - Clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

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

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

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

Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities; and Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (to be performed by either an awardee or subawardee) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

Note: The SOW shall be developed so that each Phase of the program is separately defined.

Do not include proprietary information in the SOW.

F. Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path to supplement information included in the summary of the proposal. This should also address mitigation of life-cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section IV.B.3.i of this BAA., “Intellectual Property.”

G. Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization. Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.3.i of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

H. Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas.

I. Description of Security Management architecture and/or approach for the proposed effort. Detail unique additional security requirements information system certification expertise for controlled unclassified information (CUI) or classified processing, OPSEC, program protection planning, test planning, transportation plans, work being performed at different classification levels, and/or utilizing test equipment not approved at appropriate classification level (may not be applicable for fundamental research).

J. Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort. (as applicable) K. Detail support including formal teaming agreements which are required to execute this program. (as applicable) L. Provide description of milestone cost and accomplishments.

M. Cost schedules and measurable milestones for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the proposed awardee and major subawardees, total cost, and any company cost share.