HR001123S0026-Amendment-02.pdf

HR001123S0026

Broad Agency Announcement Optimum Processing Technology Inside Memory Arrays

(OPTIMA)

Microsystems Technology Office

HR001123S0026

Amendment 2

05/04/2023

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background B. Program Description C. Program Structure D. Technical Area E. Schedule/Milestones F. Deliverables

1. Program Review Meetings

2. Hardware Prototype Delivery

3. Technical Reports

4. Monthly Financial Reports

5. Final Report

G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information H. Intellectual Property

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

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

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

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

1. Collaborative Efforts IV. Application and Submission Information

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

1. Abstract Format

2. Full Proposal Format

3. Proprietary Information

4. Security Information

a. Program Security Information

b. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

i. CUI Proposal Markings

ii. CUI Submission Requirements

c. Unclassified Submissions

5. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information Controls

6. Human Subjects Research (HSR)/Animal Use

7. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

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

9. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

10. Intellectual Property

a. For Procurement Contracts

b. For All Non-Procurement Contracts

11. Patents

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

13. Funding Restrictions

C. Submission Information

1. Submission Dates and Times

a. Abstract Due Date

b. Full Proposal Date

c. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

2. Abstract Submission Information

3. Proposal Submission Information

a. For Proposers Requesting Technology Investment Agreements

b. Classified Submission Information

4. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

3. Cost Realism

4. Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition

B. Review and Selection Process

1. Review Process

2. Handling of Source Selection Information

3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices

1. Abstracts

2. Proposals

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. Solicitation Provisions and Award Clauses, Terms and Conditions

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

(CTI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

4. Representations and Certifications

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

2. i-Edison

3. Vault

4. DARPA Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative (EEI)

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Proposers Day B. University Student and Researcher Funding

ATTACHMENT 1: Cost Volume Proposer Checklist ATTACHMENT 2: Proposal Summary Slide Template ATTACHMENT 3: General MTO Controlled Unclassified Information Guide (CUIG) ATTACHMENT 4: Other Transactions (OT) Certifications Template ATTACHMENT 5: DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title: Optimum Processing Technology Inside Memory Arrays

(OPTIMA)

Announcement Type: Amendment Funding Opportunity Number: HR001123S0026 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA): 12.910 Research and

Technology Development Dates: (All times listed herein are Eastern Time) o Posting Dates:

Initial Announcement: February 21, 2023 Amendment 1: March 03, 2023 Amendment 2: May 04, 2023 o Proposers Day: March 1, 2023 o Abstract Due Date: March 21, 2023, 4:00 PM Eastern Time o FAQ Submission Deadline: April 21, 2023, 1:00 PM Eastern Time o Proposal Due Date: May 17, 2023, 4:00 PM Eastern Time o Estimated period of performance start: October, 2023

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The DARPA Microsystems Technology Office is soliciting research proposals for the development of a fast, compact, and power-efficient transistor-based Multiply Compute Element (MCE) and a high area and power-efficient Multiply Accumulate Macro (MAM) with innovative signal processing circuits to demonstrate a fast, compact, power-efficient, and scalable compute-in-memory accelerator (CIMA).

Anticipated Funding Available for Award: Approximately $78M of total funding is anticipated for awards made against this BAA.

o $78.0M for a single Technical Area (TA) across all program phases Anticipated individual awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

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

Agency contact:

o Dr. Jason Woo, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: HR001123S0026@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: HR001123S0026

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

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

DARPA BAAs are posted on the System for Award Management (SAM) website, under the Contract Opportunities link, at https://sam.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA.

This section contains the full program description of the funding opportunity and describes the technical area (TA) or focus area. At a minimum, this section should fully describe the problem/problem set to be addressed by proposers. If there are multiple TAs, this section should describe whether or not a single proposal can address more than one TA or not. As appropriate, this section may include expectations for what a successful project entails (without detailing solutions to the problem or requirements) and topics to be addressed by proposals submitted.

The Microsystems Technology Office at DARPA seeks innovative proposals for the research and development of a fast, compact, power-efficient, and scalable compute-in-memory accelerator based on very large-scale integration (VLSI) fabrication-compatible approaches. Accelerators based on von Neumann architecture have limited computational power efficiency and long execution latency. Compute-in-memory (CIM) architectures with Multiply Accumulate Macros (MAMs) can address these limitations and greatly enhance performance. However, these implementations have been hindered by the large physical size of memory devices and the high-power consumption of peripheral circuitry. The Optimum Processing Technology Inside Memory Arrays (OPTIMA) program aims to demonstrate area and power efficient high-performance MAMs with innovative signal processing circuit and architectures. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, and systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

A. Background

The computational power efficiency, expressed in 1012 operations per second per watt (TOPS/W), of von Neumann architecture-based general purpose processors is limited by data movement between memory and computation, particularly for matrix-vector-multiplication-https://sam.gov/ intensive applications.[1] Tensor processing units (TPUs)[2] and graphics processing units (GPUs)[3] offer alternative architectures exploiting parallelism, but their power efficiency and throughput are still limited by the digital computation and data transfer. Recently, compute-in-memory (CIM) architectures have been explored to minimize data movement and computing energy by employing memory devices as Multiply Compute Elements (MCEs). The parallel matrix summing calculations of the MCE outputs are carried out by the Multiply Accumulate Macros (MAMs). CIM architectures with arrays of MAMs for highly parallel processing can greatly enhance performance for applications such as AI-based image recognition. However, CIM implementations have been limited by the large footprint of MCE memory devices and by the MAM power-hungry peripheral circuitry that is optimized for conventional (i.e., non-CIM) circuit architectures.[4][5]

B. Program Description

To enable CIMAs with 300 TOPS/W computational power efficiency and 20 TOPS/mm2 computational area density (15X and 4X higher than the state-of-the-art respectively), the performers in OPTIMA program should simultaneously address the following two Technical Challenges (TCs):

TC1: Achieving a small, power-efficient MCE.

State-of-the-art (SOA) CIMAs employ static random access memories (SRAMs) as MCE memory devices to perform multiply operations.[6] To increase the signal margin and to overcome inaccuracy due to SRAM high leakage currents, large eight transistors (8T) SRAM are typically used for MCE, causing a degradation in the access energies and time.[7] As SRAM is a 1-bit device, n-bit multiplication will typically require n2 8T SRAM cells, resulting in large execution energy (~40 pJ/operation), long execution time (> 18 ns), and more importantly, large MCE footprint which limits MAM area efficiency to be < 5 TOPS/mm2.[8]

TC2: Achieving a small, scalable, and power-efficient MAM architecture.

SOA MAM architectures with digital data processing require many energy-hungry and transistor-intensive analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). As a result, peripheral circuitry of SOA MAMs occupies as much as 50% of the area and consumes 80% of the total power, severely limiting the MAM energy efficiency to ~20 TOPS/W.[9]

1 S. Shukla et al., "A Scalable Multi-TeraOPS Core for AI Training and Inference," in IEEE Solid-State Circuits Letters (2018).

2 N. Jouppi, et al., “Ten Lessons From Three Generations Shaped Google’s TPUv4i”, ISCA (2021).

3 S. Chikkagoudar, et al., “GENIE: A software package for gene-gene interaction analysis in genetic association studies using multiple GPU or CPU cores”, BMC Research Notes (2011).

4 Power calculation includes all necessary periphery, control, and/or ADC circuitry of the MAM or CIMA test chips.

5 N. Shanbhag, et al., “Benchmarking In-Memory Computing Architectures”, OJ-SSCS, 2022.

6 S. Borkar, “Future of Computing in the so-called: Post Moore’s Law era”, SC20, (2020).

7 A. Jaiswal et al., “8T SRAM Cell as a Multi-bit Dot Product Engine for Beyond von-Neumann Computing”, IEEE Transactions on very large-scale integration (VLSI) systems, (2018).

8 Y-D. Chih, et. al, “An 89TOPS/W and 16.3TOPS/mm2 All-Digital SRAM-Based Full-Precision Compute-In Memory Macro in 22nm for Machine-Learning Edge Applications”, ISSCC (2021).

9 Mixed-Signal Compute-In-Memory macro design study by Prof. Saibal Mukhopadhyay of Georgia Institute of Technology (2022).

To overcome the technical challenges and to realize highly area-efficient MAMs, innovations in both MCE and MAM are necessary. OPTIMA seeks to develop very large-scale integration (VLSI) fabrication-compatible transistor-based MCEs with single transistor footprint, leveraging the transistor transconductance gain to achieve compact and high speed (< 1 ns read access) in-memory multiply compute elements. Example devices include, but not limited to, transistors with built-in memory functions[10,11] and three dimensional (3D) MCE with nominal single transistor footprint. OPTIMA also seeks to realize innovative signal processing circuits and architectures, such as, but not limited to, mixed domain and stochastic compute[12] processing, and co-optimizing with the OPTIMA MCEs to minimize the peripheral circuits’ area and power for highly scalable, high-density, low-power, and high-speed MAMs. Other innovative VLSI technology-based approaches, such as 3D-integrated CIMA, that can meet the OPTIMA program metrics will also be considered.

C. Program Structure

The OPTIMA program is a 54-month, three-phase program with an 18-month Phase 1 (Base), 18-month Phase 2 (Option), and 18-month Phase 3 (Option). While multiple awards are anticipated, the number of performers may decrease as options for Phase 2 and Phase 3 are exercised. Options may be exercised, at the Government’s sole discretion, based on technical progress measured against the program metrics (Table 1) and milestones defined in the BAA and funding availability.

D. Technical Area

The OPTIMA program is a single-technical-area program with all performers required to address both technical challenges. The main objectives of each program phase are:

In Phase 1 (Base), the program will realize a low-energy single-transistor footprint MCE with ≤ 1 fJ/bit, ≤ 5 ns read speed, ≤ 6 F2 nominal footprint and ≥ 1010 read endurance.

In Phase 2 (Option), the program will further improve the MCEs to achieve ≤ 0.5 fJ/bit, ≤ 1 ns read speed, ≤ 3 F2 nominal footprint and ≥ 1011 read endurance, and experimentally demonstrate a compact MAM with at least 256x256 MCEs with 100 TOPS/W energy efficiency and 20 TOPS/mm2 area efficiency.

In Phase 3 (Option), the program will further improve and optimize the MCEs and MAMs to realize experimentally a CIMA with 100 TOPS throughput and 300 TOPS/W energy efficiency.

10 F. Khan et al., "Charge Trap Transistor (CTT): An Embedded Fully Logic-Compatible Multiple-Time Programmable Non-Volatile Memory Element for High-k-Metal-Gate CMOS Technologies," IEEE Electron Device Letters, 2017.

11 S. Salahuddin et al., "FeFETs for Near-Memory and In-Memory Compute", IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting, 2021.

12 W. Romaszkan et al., “A 4.4–75-TOPS/W 14-nm Programmable, Performance- and Precision-Tunable All-Digital Stochastic Computing Neural Network Inference Accelerator”. IEEE Solid-State Circuit Letters., 2022.

In the OPTIMA program, the performers also will be expected to develop the necessary data sets, algorithms, software, and/or supporting hardware required to test and demonstrate the program metrics outlined below in Table 1 on their MAM and CIMA hardware, and to provide these resources to the government IV&V team.

Table 1: OPTIMA Program Metrics

TC Metrics(1) Phase 1 (18 mo.)

Low-energy MCE

Phase 2 (18 mo.)

Compact MCE and MAM

Phase 3 (18 mo.)

Scalable MAM arrays

Switching Energy (fJ/bit) ≤ 1 ≤ 0.5 ≤ 0.5

Read Speed (ns) ≤ 5 ≤ 1 ≤ 1

Read Endurance (Cycles) 10

12TC1

MCE Cell Size (F2)(2) ≤ 6 ≤ 3 ≤ 3

MAM array Size (number of MCEs) 256x256 (simulated) 256x256 (measured) 256x256 (measured) MAM Density (TOPS/mm2) 20 (simulated) 20 (measured) 20 (measured) MAM Peak Compute Efficiency (TOPS/W)(3)(4) 100 (simulated) 100 (measured)

300 (simulated) 300 (measured)TC2

CIMA Compute Throughput (TOPS)(3)(5) CIM Architecture Study 100 (simulated) 100 (measured)

Table 1 Notes for Program Metrics:

(1) TOPS/W in the MAM will be measured for an 8-bit integer multiply–accumulate (MAC) operation with full 8-bit arithmetic accuracy.

(2) “F” is defined as the contacted gate pitch of the MCE transistor.

(3) Computing density, computing efficiency, and compute throughput all are benchmarked against the proposer-proposed data set and algorithm meeting requirement of Note (1).

(4) Power calculation includes all necessary periphery, control, and/or ADC circuitry of the MAM or

CIMA test chips.

(5) Large data set 8-bit input benchmark including the inferencing accuracy target defined by proposer.

fJ/bit = femtojoules of energy per bit ns = nanoseconds of speed TOPS = tera operations per second (compute throughput) TOPS/W = tera operations per second per watt (compute efficiency)

E. Schedule/Milestones

OPTIMA will be a 54-month, three-phase program with an period of performance estimated to start in October 2023. A post-award program kickoff meeting will be held to present the technical approaches, to discuss technical and programmatic items of concern, and to interact with the Government team and other program performers. The end of each phase represents a major technical milestone in the program; end-of-phase review meetings will be scheduled approximately six weeks before the end of Phase 1; and approximately six weeks before the end of Phase 2 and Phase 3. These meetings will be used to assess technical progress toward the metrics during the entire phase. Technical progress towards the metrics of the program is a significant deciding factor for continuation into subsequent phases and will be monitored through monthly teleconference calls and occasional site visits by the DARPA program manager and other members of the Government team.

Figure 1: OPTIMA Program Schedule

F. Deliverables

1. Program Review Meetings

Technical review meetings with the OPTIMA Program Manager are anticipated to be held every month, usually as a teleconference, and every six months in person. The review meeting deliverable will be a technical slide presentation. Additional program reviews with all performers are anticipated to be held in person at the beginning of each program phase, and may replace the technical review meetings. There also is anticipated to be an end-of-phase meeting with each individual performer approximately six weeks before the end of each phase. Prior to each end-of-phase meeting, performers will provide to the Government a written report covering, a) technical results, and b) charts with explanations of how well the component(s)/system(s) meets, exceeds, or falls short of specified program metrics (as described in this BAA). Templates may be provided for the technical review teleconferences and will include technical updates with simulated and measured results to demonstrate progress toward the program metrics, as well as an up-to-date financial spend plan.

2. Hardware Prototype Delivery

The Government expects to conduct performance testing of OPTIMA deliverables to independently validate performer progress towards achieving program goals. Performers will coordinate with the Government team to deliver testable hardware and its test plan to be evaluated against program metrics:

Phase 1: ten MCE devices Phase 2: ten MCE devices and ten MAM circuits Phase 3: ten MCE devices, ten MAM circuits, and five CIMA modules

Performers should anticipate delivering the hardware to the Government per the following schedule:

Prototype device delivery expected Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

16 mos. after phase start 16 mos. after phase start 16 mos. after phase start

3. Technical Reports

Technical reports should be anticipated to be submitted on a monthly basis beginning within two weeks after the kick-off meeting and two working days prior to each subsequently scheduled program event, such as technical review meetings.

Other proposed deliverables specific to the objectives of the individual efforts may include registered reports, experimental protocols, publications, data management plan, intermediate and final versions of software libraries, code, and APIs, documentation and user manuals, and/or a comprehensive assemblage of design documents, models, modeling data and results, and model validation data.

4. Monthly Financial Reports

The financial report shall describe resources expended, resources available, any deviation from planned expenditures, and any potential issues requiring the attention of the Government team.

This report should be anticipated to be provided within 10 days from the end of each month.

5. Final Report

After the end of each phase, the report shall summarize the effort in a comprehensive text document.

G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information

No Government Furnished Equipment, Property, or Information is anticipated to be provided in this program.

H. Intellectual Property

It is expected that the data/software developed under OPTIMA will have the following minimum data rights:

Government Purpose Rights.

See also Section IV.B.2, “Section III. Other Transaction Request, if applicable” and Section IV.B.11, “Intellectual Property.”

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

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

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

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see section labeled “Application Review Information,” Sec. V.), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.4., “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

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.

b) Government Entities

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

c) Authority and Eligibility

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

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

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

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

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

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

An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

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

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

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

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

1. Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged.

IV. Application and Submission Information

PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE LOWERED

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

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

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. Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal. Abstracts should follow the format described below in this section. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT” and the total length of Section II should not exceed 5 pages.

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

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001123S0026);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting abstract;

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

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

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include:

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

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

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

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

(11) Date proposal abstract was submitted.

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

Section II. Abstract Details

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

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

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

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

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

2. Full Proposal Format

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

Volume I – Technical and Management Proposal (3 sections), and Volume II – Cost Proposal (4 sections). The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Section II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, shall not exceed 30 pages. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. There is no page limit for Volume II, Cost Proposal.

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

a. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

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

Section I. Administrative

A. Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001123S0026);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

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

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

(6) Other team members (if applicable) along with the organization’s name, principal investigator (PI), co-PI, program manager (if applicable) and type of organization for each;

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include:

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

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

B. Official transmittal letter.

The transmittal letter should identify the BAA number, the proposal by name, and the proposal reference number (if any), and should be signed by an individual who is authorized to submit proposals to the Government.

Section II. Detailed Proposal Information

A. Executive Summary Summarize the technical approach, anticipated performance, and expected outcomes of the proposed effort. The executive summary should be concise and to the point. Tables, graphs, and diagrams can be used as supplemental material along with narrative to convey the information.

B. Technical Approach This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly summarize the innovative claims for the proposed research and clearly describe the proposed approach without using any jargon. This section should demonstrate that the proposer has a clear understanding of the state-of-the-art and should provide sufficient justification and quantitative analysis for the feasibility of the proposed approach(es). This section should include a detailed technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation.

C. Statement of Work (SOW) In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The SOW does not have a required page length and proposers should plan to develop a SOW that clearly and thoroughly outlines each task/subtask required for the successful completion of the proposed solution. The SOW must not include proprietary information. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

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

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

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

5. Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities; AND

6. Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (prime or subcontracted) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

Note: Each phase of the program must be separately defined in the SOW. Include a SOW for each subcontractor and/or consultant in the Cost Proposal Volume. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW(s).

D. Schedules and measurable milestones Schedules and measurable milestones for the proposed research. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.) Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options. Additionally, proposals should clearly explain the technical approach(es) to meet or exceed each program metric and provide sufficient justifications that the approach(es) is/are feasible. The milestones must not include proprietary information.

E. Results and Technology Transfer Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer. 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.11, “Intellectual Property.” If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated.

F. Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan Identify the major technical and programmatic risks in the program. Include a risk matrix.

For each risk, assign a probability of occurrence on a scale of 1-10, where 10 indicates a high likelihood that the risk will impact program success, as well as an assessment of impact, also on a scale of 1-10, where 10 indicates that this risk would maximally limit the program from delivering prototypes on schedule or meeting performance objectives. For each item with total risk (likelihood × impact) exceeding 40, include a plan for mitigating the risk and assessing risk reduction.

G. Ongoing Research Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

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

I. National Security Impact Statement To reduce the potential for unintended foreign access to critical U.S. national security technologies developed under this effort, proposals shall describe:

How the proposed work contributes to U.S. national security and U.S. technological capabilities. The proposer may also summarize previous work that contributed to U.S.

national security and U.S. technological capabilities.

Plans and capabilities to transition technologies developed under this effort to U.S.

national security applications and/or to U.S. industry. The proposer may also discuss previous technology transitions to the benefit of U.S. interests, both commercial and for national security.

Any plans to transition technologies developed under this effort to foreign governments or to companies that are foreign owned, controlled or influenced. The proposer may also discuss previous technology transition to these groups.

How the proposer will assist its employees and agents performing work under this effort to be eligible to participate in the U.S. national security environment.

J. Facilities and Equipment

Description of the facilities and equipment that would be used for the proposed effort and how they will support meeting program metrics.

K. Teaming Describe the formal teaming arrangements which will be used to execute this effort. Describe the programmatic relationship between investigators and the rationale for choosing this teaming strategy. Present a coherent organization chart and integrated management strategy for the program team. For each person, indicate: (1) name, (2) affiliation, (3) abbreviated listing of all technical area tasks they will work on with roles, responsibilities, and percent time indicated, (4) discussion of the proposers’ previous accomplishments, relevant expertise and/or unique capabilities.

L. Security Management (as applicable) Describe 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).

Section III. Additional Information

Information in this section may include a brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant prior papers may be included in the submission.

b. Volume II, Cost Proposal – {No Page Limit}

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:

Section I. Administrative

Cover sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001123S0026);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

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

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

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

(6) Other team members (if applicable) Other team members (if applicable) along with the organization’s name, principal investigator (PI), co-PI, program manager (if applicable) and type of organization for each;

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include:

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

(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

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

(10) Award instrument requested:

Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost-contract—no fee, cost sharing contract—no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), or Other Transaction;

(11) Place(s) and period(s) of performance;

(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s), if any, by calendar year and by government fiscal year;

(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

(14) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

(15) Date proposal was prepared;

(16) DUNS number;

(17) TIN number;

(18) CAGE Code;

(19) Subcontractor Information;

(20) Proposal validity period (120 days is recommended); AND

(21) Any Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, other such approved rate information, or such documentation that may assist in expediting negotiations (if available).

Attachment 1, the Cost Volume Proposer Checklist, must be included with the coversheet of the Cost Proposal.

Section II. Detailed Cost Information (Prime and Subcontractors)

The proposers’, to include eligible FFRDCs’, cost volume shall provide cost and pricing information (See Note 1), or other than cost or pricing information if the total price is under the referenced threshold, in sufficient detail to substantiate the program price proposed (e.g., realism and reasonableness). In doing so, the proposer shall provide, for both the prime and each subcontractor, a “Summary Cost Breakdown” by phase and performer fiscal year, and a “Detailed Cost Breakdown” by phase, technical task/sub-task, and month. The breakdown/s shall include, at a minimum, the following major cost items along with associated backup documentation:

Total program cost broken down by major cost items:

A. Direct Labor A breakout clearly identifying the individual labor categories with associated labor hours and direct labor rates, as well as a detailed Basis-of-Estimate (BOE) narrative description of the methods used to estimate labor costs;

B. Indirect Costs

Including Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General and Administrative Expense, Cost of Money, Fee, etc. (must show base amount and rate);

C. Travel Provide the purpose of the trip, number of trips, number of days per trip, departure and arrival destinations, number of people, etc.;

D. Other Direct Costs Itemized with costs; back-up documentation is to be submitted to support proposed costs;

E. Material/Equipment

(i) An itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined by FAR 2.101 – Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs(vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be provided, including a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding for prime and all sub-awardees.

(ii) A priced Bill-of-Material (BOM) clearly identifying, for each item proposed, the quantity, unit price, the source of the unit price (i.e., vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc.), the type of…