HR001123S0029.pdf

HR001123S0029 METALS 1

Broad Agency Announcement Multiobjective Engineering and Testing of ALloy Structures

(METALS)

Defense Sciences Office

HR001123S0029

March 15, 2023

HR001123S0029 METALS 2

Table of Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Introduction B. Background C. Program Description/Scope D. Program Structure E. Focus Area Descriptions F. Schedule/Milestones G. Deliverables H. Government-furnished Property/Equipment/Information I. Other Program Objectives and Considerations

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. Ability to Support Classified Development

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review and Selection Process C. Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP) D. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Proposers Day B. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) C. Collaborative Efforts/Teaming D. Sample ACA Clause

BAA Attachments:

Attachment A: ABSTRACT SUMMARY SLIDE TEMPLATE Attachment B: ABSTRACT TEMPLATE Attachment C: PROPOSAL SUMMARY SLIDE TEMPLATE Attachment D: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT

HR001123S0029 METALS 3

Attachment E: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE VOLUME 2: COST Attachment F: MS ExcelTM DARPA COST PROPOSAL SPREADSHEET Attachment G: PROPOSAL TEMPLATE VOLUME 3: ADMINISTRATIVE & NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS Attachment H: CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) GUIDE

HR001123S0029 METALS 4

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense

Sciences Office (DSO)

Funding Opportunity Title: Multiobjective Engineering and Testing of ALloy Structures

(METALS)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: HR001123S0029

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): 12.910 Research and Technology Development

Dates (All times listed herein are Eastern Time.)

o Posting Date: March 15, 2023 o Proposers Day: March 24, 2023. See Section VIII.A.

o Abstract Due Date: April 14, 2023, 4:00 p.m.

o FAQ Submission Deadline: June 2, 2023, 4:00 p.m. See Section VIII.B.

o Full Proposal Due Date: June 9, 2023, 4:00 p.m.

Anticipated Individual Awards: DARPA anticipates multiple awards

Types of Instruments that May be Awarded: Procurement contracts, cooperative agreements or Other Transaction for Prototype agreements. Award instruments will be limited to procurement contracts and Other Transactions for Proposers whose proposed solution includes Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

Agency contacts o Technical Point of Contact (POC): Andrew Detor, Program Manager, DARPA/DSO o BAA Email: METALS@darpa.mil o BAA Mailing Address:

DARPA/DSO

ATTN: HR001123S0029

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 o DARPA/DSO Opportunities Website: http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities

Teaming Information: See Section VIII.C for information on teaming opportunities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): FAQs for this solicitation may be viewed on the DARPA/DSO Opportunities Website. See Section VIII.B for further information.

Security: The METALS program will be an unclassified research program with potential components that are CUI. METALS will demonstrate system performance and generate mailto:METALS@darpa.mil https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?oFilter=DSO https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?oFilter=DSO

HR001123S0029 METALS 5

test articles that may be considered CUI. For further details, please see Sections IV.B.4 and

IV.B.5.

HR001123S0029 METALS 6

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) constitutes a public notice of a competitive funding opportunity as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 as well as 2 C.F.R. § 200.203. Any resultant negotiations and/or awards will follow all laws and regulations applicable to the specific award instrument(s) available under this BAA, e.g., FAR

15.4 for procurement contracts.

A. Introduction

The Defense Sciences Office (DSO) at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of material testing and design optimization. The Multiobjective Engineering and Testing of ALloy Structures (METALS) program will develop foundational technologies enabling material as an explicit, continuous variable in structural design. Such foundational technologies include new material test methods to rapidly generate relevant properties and optimization frameworks that leverage materials informatics to represent complex material behavior. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

B. Background

The METALS program aims to disrupt two significant barriers at the intersection of materials science and engineering design: (1) design-relevant material property measurements rely on century-old testing techniques that are inefficient and costly; and (2) material is treated as a discrete input in design instead of a variable to be optimized. These barriers fundamentally prevent concurrent optimization of design and material together. As a result, materials scientists lack clear direction on new property combinations that would unlock significant system performance gains, and designers are limited to a legacy palette of materials. Furthermore, material itself is currently treated as a discrete variable in design, preventing local optimization of material within engineered components. This “one part-one material” constraint limits performance and reliability, while also affecting sustainability in situations where critical raw materials are consumed in locations within a part where they may not be required. Removing this traditional constraint in favor of a “continuum material” approach will open new degrees of freedom in design. While continuum material approaches have been explored to some degree in the past (also referred to as functionally graded materials, hybrid materials, or multi-materials), efforts have generally focused on limited combinations of discrete materials, variations in only 1 or 2 dimensions, and designs driven by intuition. DARPA believes that recent advances in full-field characterization techniques and the maturing field of materials informatics will enable combined breakthroughs in experimental material testing and material-integrated design optimization for revolutionary improvements in system performance, reliability, and sustainability.

C. Program Description/Scope

METALS aims to enable continuum material structures by leveraging recent advances in material testing and materials informatics. Novel full-field characterization methods now exist

HR001123S0029 METALS 7

that can track test specimen behavior (e.g., deformation) with precise temporospatial detail.

Applying these methods to non-conventional test specimens will enable the simultaneous extraction of multiple properties aided by inverse analysis techniques. In this approach, material properties are learned based on observed specimen response rather than attempting to model response based on traditional curated material property curves. METALS aims to demonstrate rapid acquisition of design-relevant properties through the combination of novel specimen designs, state-of-the-art full-field characterization techniques, and inverse analysis. In parallel, METALS will explore fundamentally new design optimization methods that include material explicitly. Today, material is treated as an input in design because no surrogate model exists that can adequately capture the complexity of material behavior (e.g., how composition and processing details affect a broad range of properties). Materials informatics (applying data-driven methods, including machine learning, to material development) has matured significantly over the past decade to the point where tools that can accurately and efficiently capture material behavior with quantified uncertainty now exist. METALS will explore the application of materials informatics as a conduit into design optimization frameworks, providing a direct, explicit link between the two disciplines. METALS will leverage ongoing industrial advances in multi-material manufacturing to fabricate continuum material demonstration parts and establish proof of concept.

Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice. This includes brute-force approaches to automate existing test procedures (e.g., using robotics to load/unload conventional test specimens) and novel analyses applied to currently available test platforms (e.g., instrumented indentation). Efforts that primarily advance computational material modeling and simulation to predict material behavior are also excluded, as METALS seeks to advance experimental property testing. Proposals that focus significantly on material microstructure will also be considered non-conforming, as METALS aims to derive material properties directly from testing without requiring microstructure information. Additionally, discrete material optimization approaches are excluded where design-of-experiments or related methods are introduced as a wrapper around existing shape optimization frameworks: METALS seeks novel approaches to integrate material into the design process explicitly and in a continuous manner. Finally, as the program acronym implies, proposed efforts must encompass metallic alloys with a focus on thermostructural design as detailed in Section E.

D. Program Structure

METALS is a four-year, three-phase program that will use a phased acquisition approach.

Proposals must be structured as a 24-month Phase I base with an option for a 12-month Phase II effort. Proposers must also provide a draft Statement of Work (SOW) and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for a 12-month Phase III. Proposals that do not include a Phase III draft SOW and ROM will be deemed non-conforming. Near the end of Phase II, DARPA may issue proposal instructions to Phase II performers requesting final SOWs and revised cost proposals for Phase III. Competition for Phase III will be limited to Phase II performers only.

Evaluation of Phase III proposals will be based on criteria to be specified in the Phase III proposal requests. The Phase III evaluation criteria will be consistent with the evaluation criteria in this solicitation, but may be tailored in the Phase III requests for updated proposals. Phase III proposal evaluations will be conducted through a scientific and technical review process in accordance with Section V.A. and V.B. The Government reserves the right to issue a new

HR001123S0029 METALS 8

solicitation for Phase III with a new award instrument if programmatic circumstances dictate.

Participation in Phase II does not guarantee funding in Phase III. Progression to the next phase will be contingent on evaluation of Phase III proposals and availability of funds.

The METALS program comprises two Focus Areas (FAs): FA1 - New material test capabilities and FA2 - Novel material-integrated design optimization techniques. Proposers are required to propose to both FA1 and FA2 in a single proposal for Phase I; any proposal that addresses only one FA will be deemed non-conforming. This is intended to bring experts in materials and design together to accomplish the METALS program goals. FA1 and FA2 will be integrated during Phase II to demonstrate a coupled materials testing platform and design optimization loop.

Prototype components will be manufactured in Phase III to show proof-of-concept, and the tools and methods developed on METALS will be transitioned to Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) teams or other U.S. Government stakeholders. An additional challenge problem will also be included in Phase III to test the generalizability of performer approaches.

METALS is structured around two exemplary challenge problems that will be carried through the entire program: a bladed disk (blisk) as commonly found in turbomachinery (including jet and rocket engines) and an impeller as found in pumps and watercraft. Proposals must select one of the two challenge problems and focus on the design-relevant material properties detailed in Section E. Blisk or impeller designs available in the open literature for purchase, or proposer developed proprietary designs can be used. In all cases the maximum outer diameter of the blisk or impeller must be scaled in the range of 15-50 cm. The Government will not supply any specific component models or drawings.

Figure 1 provides a high-level overview of the program schedule, including the alignment of phases, FAs, system demonstrations/capability challenges, and involvement of IV&V teams.

Figure 1. METALS program schedule.

Phase I is a base period to develop and demonstrate proposed approaches for FA1 and FA2.

Performers will work closely with DARPA and IV&V teams during the initial six (6) months of Phase I to detail a plan that (1) defines the selected challenge problem design variables, objectives, and constraints; (2) provides a detailed design of the material test platform(s); and (3)

HR001123S0029 METALS 9

specifies the design optimization architecture and software development plan. A data strategy must also be outlined describing, in detail, how material properties will be collected, organized, stored, and queried with integration into the design optimization platform. Following a 6-month critical design review (CDR), the remaining 18 months of Phase I will focus on building and demonstrating both the material tests platform and design optimization software. Near the end of Phase I (month 21), performers will conduct full system demonstrations establishing independent proof-of-concept for both FAs.

Phase II (12 months) is an option period to demonstrate coupled high-throughput testing and material-integrated design optimization. Performers will demonstrate that they can (1) screen new materials driven by design optimization needs, (2) incorporate newly measured material properties in the design optimization process in near real time, and (3) connect processing to properties to develop a part manufacturing plan in preparation for Phase III. By the end of month 34, performers must demonstrate and quantify the benefits of a continuum material approach achieved by coupling the test and design platforms. Performers will also present to DARPA their manufacturing process plan that connects local process variables to the final component shape.

Phase III (12 months) is a second option period for performers to establish proof-of-concept for a continuous material shape-optimized component. Performers will complete manufacturing demonstrations followed by characterization and proof-testing for the challenge part selected in Phase I and optimized in Phase II.

An additional challenge problem will also be worked in Phase III. The intent of the additional challenge problem is to test the generalizability of the performer-developed material test and design platforms. The additional challenge problem will be a design exercise only; no demonstration hardware will need to be manufactured. The additional challenge problem may be performer proposed or suggested by DARPA or IV&V teams; a final decision will be made by DARPA prior to the beginning of Phase III and included in the Phase III proposal instructions.

Finally, performers will work with DARPA in Phase III to transition developed test methods and design software to interested IV&V laboratories, or other U.S. Government stakeholders, and assist in training personnel to operate the new capabilities. Performers are also encouraged to publish test method standards through internationally recognized organizations (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), etc.), as appropriate.

Subject matter experts at U.S. Government laboratories and a University Applied Research Center (UARC) will serve as technical advisors and IV&V partners throughout the program, providing DARPA an assessment of performer capabilities and validating experimental data and/or system performance. Performers will be expected to work openly and regularly with DARPA and designated IV&V teams throughout the program. Performers will be required to provide details of their systems, including but not limited to engineering drawings, operating methods and instructions, software, datasets, and samples to DARPA and/or any designated IV&V organizations upon request. Proposals must include a task to reflect interaction with DARPA and IV&V teams and delivery of requested information, data, hardware, software, and materials. This BAA does not solicit IV&V participation. U.S. Government, Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), or UARC personnel interested in learning more about METALS or potentially participating in program activities should contact DARPA at METALS@darpa.mil.

mailto:METALS@darpa.mil

HR001123S0029 METALS 10

E. Focus Area Descriptions

The METALS program consists of two FAs organized around one of two challenge problems as introduced above. Proposers are required to propose to both FAs in a single proposal. While the challenge parts (blisk and impeller) share some similarity (e.g., both are rotating components used in propulsion applications), they operate in very different environments. Because of this, the material properties driving performance are distinct and together cover a broad range of behaviors common to structural design. Importantly, the intent of METALS is not specifically to develop better blisks or impellers; rather, METALS is a foundational program designed to disrupt the way material testing and design optimization are conducted. The challenge problems serve to focus performer efforts and provide clear example targets for development. Table 1 provides general guidance on selected material properties pertinent to the blisk and impeller challenge problems. Note that this table is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Other properties not listed here are encouraged; however, if introduced, proposals must clearly articulate their importance.

Table 1: Selected material properties relevant to challenge problem parts.

The first row in Table 1 lists some of the important properties that are critical to blisk and impeller performance. In FA1, performers will develop novel test methods to rapidly acquire design-relevant material property data. While solutions that can capture all design-relevant properties are desired, proposed test approaches must address the following three points:

Tensile behavior as a function of temperature (e.g., must include elastic modulus, yield strength, strain hardening behavior, ultimate tensile strength, and a measure of ductility)

One time-dependent property (e.g., creep, fatigue, etc.) as a function of temperature

One environmental property (e.g., corrosion, oxidation, etc.) as a function of temperature

Proposals that include credible approaches to capture more properties will be viewed favorably over those proposing fewer. However, attention must be paid to the realism, accuracy, and speed of proposed approaches to meet the metrics outlined below. More properties will not automatically improve selection chances if capturing those properties is deemed unrealistic; in this case, focused approaches on fewer properties meeting the minimums outlined above are preferred. Proposers will need to strike the right balance in their proposals. Properties that are relevant for challenge part design but not included in proposed experimental measurement efforts can be approximated using available literature data, general trends, or stated assumptions.

Property Category Blisk Impeller

Performance

Yield strength, creep, low cycle fatigue, crack growth, hot corrosion, oxidation, impact tolerance

Yield strength, modulus, fracture toughness, high cycle fatigue, corrosion resistance, cavitation erosion

Material Criticality Supply chain risk, cost, sustainability

HR001123S0029 METALS 11

Proposers may use modeling and simulation methods to supplement required design properties only in situations where proven, readily available modeling techniques exist. As mentioned earlier, material modeling and simulation development efforts are explicitly excluded from the METALS program.

Metrics related to material criticality are also included in Table 1: supply chain risk, cost, and sustainability. These properties are not intended to be measured, but must be included in design optimization. Performers should use existing metrics available in the open literature or company proprietary information to estimate these values for a given material composition. DARPA highly encourages novel approaches compatible with design optimization to quantify material criticality.

For the selected challenge problem, Phase I performers will develop material testing and design optimization platforms. Metrics for Phase I are given in Table 2 and are discussed in detail below.

Table 2: Phase I metrics.

Phase I : Testing and Design Platform Development

Phase I, FA1: Material Testing

FA1 performers will develop the processes and hardware for experimental test platforms capable of timely property measurement for design. Proposers should not be constrained by current practices in material testing. Unconventional equipment and/or approaches that offer improved efficiency are encouraged. DARPA is not specifying the type of equipment to be included in the system; rather, proposers should determine what is most broadly applicable to be efficient and effective at achieving the METALS vision.

Metric 1.1: From the conception of a new material (composition and process) performers must demonstrate <1 week turnaround time to measured properties for design. This encompasses initial specimen production, any required machining, testing, and post-test analysis. In this rapid, high-throughput testing scenario the accuracy of measured results must be balanced against the benefits of an accelerated timeline.

Metric 1.2: Accuracy does not need to match established (slow) traditional methods, but must be demonstrated within 10% of established test protocol results. For example, if the average yield strength of an alloy is measured at 200 MPa at a particular temperature using conventional tensile testing, the new test platform should produce an average yield

1.1 <1 week turnaround time from new material definition to design-relevant properties

1.2 ±10% material testing accuracy (vs. traditional methods) on specimens <10 cm in all dimensions

1.3 >150 alloy variants tested from at least 15 unique compositions

1.4 <12 hour convergence to a challenge problem continuum material solution on an engineering workstation

HR001123S0029 METALS 12

strength between 180-220 MPa at that temperature. Uncertainty on the measured property must also be quantified and minimized to the extent possible, but will not be considered as a primary program metric. Uncertainty can be derived through direct specimen repeat testing, a test campaign involving multiple unique geometries, measurement of the same property at different locations on the test sample, or some combination of these. Test specimens should be <10 cm in all dimensions to enable easy handling and limit material usage.

Metric 1.3: Successful performers will demonstrate a full suite of design-relevant property measurements on >150 alloy variants from at least 15 unique compositions over the duration of Phase I. For example, this could be 15 unique alloy compositions processed using 10 different conditions, 150 unique compositions manufactured using an identical process, or any combination in between.

The combination of <1 week turnaround time to properties at 10% accuracy over 150+ alloy variants is aggressive relative to conventional material testing practices. Proposed solutions must leverage unconventional specimen designs along with advanced characterization and analysis to achieve these targets. Extraction of multiple properties in a single test will be a key enabler.

Phase I, FA2: Design Optimization

Metric 1.4: Performers must demonstrate convergence time of <12 hours to a continuum material solution using a ‘typical’ engineering workstation. A typical workstation is defined here as a desktop computer designed for technical engineering analysis that can be readily purchased off-the-shelf. For example, a typical engineering workstation may have a 10-core processer, running at 3-5 GHz, with 16 GB of RAM. The exact numbers are less important; the key point is that solutions should not require extensive supercomputer capabilities. Successful design optimization solutions must be accessible.

A convergence time of <12 hours is specified so that design iterations can be done daily and updated with new material test data as it becomes available. Proposals must specify a convergence criteria and acceptable threshold to indicate that a steady result has been achieved.

The design optimization FA is intentionally broad to accommodate a range of potential solutions.

DARPA is not specifying the optimization framework performers should use. Proposals may include multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO), topology optimization, shape optimization, or any number of other approaches. Proposed approaches, however, must include material explicitly in the optimization loop itself. Approaches that consider material outside the loop – a discrete optimization approach, for example – will be non-conforming. Proposers are encouraged to include novel approaches to material representation in the design framework.

Alternatives to traditional individual property curves and lookup tables could, for example, be replaced using a modern materials informatics approach. Material must also be allowed to vary continuously throughout the challenge problem component as a degree of freedom in the optimization routine. As an extreme example, every element in a part (considering a finite element-based approach) could be allowed to vary in material properties. In practice, performers must consider constraints on minimum achievable volume element (voxel) along with other manufacturing constraints and material compatibility concerns. Proposals must detail an approach to prevent the formation of deleterious phases or other undesirable discontinuities as

HR001123S0029 METALS 13

material varies throughout the component. Manufacturing process, total service lifetime, and operating temperature should be considered in these calculations.

Finally, FA2 is intended to advance the state-of-the-art in material integration, and not fluid-structure interaction. While blade shape is critical to the overall performance of the blisk and impeller, significant compute time must not be spent optimizing detailed blade contour. Minor shape changes to accommodate new materials are allowed, but those shape changes should not vary significantly from the baseline part configuration. Simplifying assumptions to account for fluid interaction may be proposed, but detailed considerations of fluid interaction are out of scope on the METALS program. Internal structure variations and modification of the base/hub sections of the blisk or impeller are acceptable and may be beneficial to take advantage of a continuous material approach. Performers will need to set boundary conditions and specify simplifying assumptions appropriate for their specific designs.

System demonstrations at months 14 and 21 will provide critical assessment points for DARPA and the IV&V teams (see Section I.F below). Approaches will be evaluated relative to Phase I metrics (Table 2) and factors such as reproducibility, ease of implementation, and time and material savings relative to tests commonly employed within the materials research community.

DARPA may modify the parameters of the demonstration during the course of the program in response to either technical progress or performer requirements.

Phase II: Coupled Optimization

Upon successful completion of Phase I, performers will have demonstrated fully capable material test platforms and continuum material design optimization frameworks meeting or exceeding the metrics outlined in Table 2. In Phase II, these capabilities will be brought together to iterate on challenge part designs. Metrics associated with Phase II are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Phase II metrics.

2.1 Automated <1 hour transfer from material test output to design platform input

2.2

Demonstrated benefit of continuum vs. single material approach Performance o Blisk: >100°C increase in max operating temperature o Impeller: >50% weight reduction

Material Criticality o Blisk & Impeller: 50% reduction in alloy criticality index

Metric 2.1: Performers must demonstrate automated transfer of data from the material test platform (immediately after a test is completed) into the design optimization software in under 1 hour. All data analysis and reduction must be completed as part of this transfer resulting in a format that can be read directly by the design platform. Limited manual intervention to complete the handoff will be allowable (e.g., loading material data files into the design software) but must be routine and require minimal effort. This connection between material testing and design is historically fragile and informal; the METALS program seeks novel approaches to systematize this connection. As mentioned earlier, new representations for material properties are encouraged to enable this quantitative link.

HR001123S0029 METALS 14

Metric 2.2: The benefits of a continuum material design in terms of both performance and material criticality will be quantified against state-of-the-art single-material approaches. Performers will be required to quantify the maximum allowable operating temperature of the blisk, or the weight of the impeller, using a typical/traditional single material and compare the values to those enabled by a continuum material design. The METALS program aims for >100°C improvement in the maximum operating temperature of a blisk and at least 50% reduction in the weight of an impeller.

Additionally, the METALS program is targeting a 50% reduction in alloy criticality for both the blisk and impeller. Performers should propose their preferred alloy criticality index from those discussed in the literature or derive appropriate expressions that combine elements of cost, supply chain risk, and sustainability.

Phase III: Manufacturing Demonstration and Transition

This description of Phase III is provided to facilitate the inclusion of a draft SOW and ROM cost with the submitted proposals. The draft SOW and ROM are for planning purposes and will not be evaluated at this time. Per Section I.D, DARPA anticipates requesting revised SOWs and cost proposals for Phase III from Phase II performers during Phase II. Specifics on Phase III activities will be included in the request for Phase III proposals and may differ from the description included here.

DARPA envisions Phase III of the METALS program as a demonstration and manufacturing proof-of-concept for continuum material challenge parts and a transition of developed technologies to U.S. Government and/or IV&V stakeholders. Metrics associated with the envisioned Phase III goals are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Phase III metrics.

3.1 Manufacture 3+ continuum material challenge parts (>15cm in diameter)

3.2 Demonstrate material placement accuracy within 1% of major part dimension

3.3 Proof test continuum material part vs. single material baseline

Blisk: Spin test demonstrating increased burst speed Impeller: Cavitation test demonstrating extended part life

Metric 3.1: Performers will work with existing multi-material manufacturing platforms to produce at least three (3) identical parts that are >15 cm in outer diameter, using an optimized continuum material challenge part configuration identified in Phase II.

Performers will need to work within existing state-of-the-art multi-material manufacturing capabilities.

Metric 3.2: Performers must characterize at least one manufactured part to ensure both overall shape and material placement are consistent with design intent. Spatial deviation of material placement is allowed up to 1% of the major part dimension. For example, if the selected challenge part is 20 cm in diameter, material placement must be shown accurate within 2 mm. Performers must specify an appropriate spatial pattern matching

HR001123S0029 METALS 15

technique either from the literature or derived for the purposes described here. At least three (3) unique cross-sections will be required, and specific planes will be agreed upon between performer, DARPA, and IV&V teams prior to characterization.

Metric 3.3: At least one manufactured challenge part will be subject to proof testing.

Blisks will be run through a spin test to measure burst speed, and impellers will be subject to cavitation testing. Testing will be conducted at IV&V team laboratories, or organized by DARPA through an outside source. Performers may be required to modify hub designs for the blisk and impeller to accommodate the specific test infrastructure.

Details will be finalized near the end of Phase II to assist in preparing a Phase III SOW.

Performers will also complete an additional challenge problem in Phase III. As noted earlier, performers will not be required to manufacture additional hardware; the new challenge problem will be limited to a design exercise only. Challenge problems may be proposed by performers or assigned by DARPA or the IV&V team; a final decision will be made by DARPA prior to the beginning of Phase III and included in the Phase III proposal instructions.

Finally, Phase III will include a dedicated effort to transition performer-developed test platforms and/or design optimization software to interested U.S. Government or IV&V partners. It is anticipated that during the course of the program certain capabilities will be desirable for transition. Performers will be expected to fully document their methods and train personnel on the operation of any transitioned hardware/software. Performers are encouraged to publish newly developed test method standards through internationally recognized organizations (e.g., ASTM, ISO, etc.), as appropriate.

F. Schedule/Milestones

Proposers must provide a technical and programmatic strategy that conforms to the entire program schedule for Phases I and II and a draft SOW and ROM cost for an anticipated Phase III. Proposals must present aggressive plans to fully address program goals, metrics, milestones, and deliverables. The task structure must be consistent across the proposed schedule, SOW, and cost volume. Schedules will be synchronized across performers, as required, and monitored/revised as necessary throughout the program. Other pertinent schedule/milestone details are as follows:

o A start date of February 1, 2024 may be assumed for planning purposes.

o 6 months following contract award (FCA): Performers will participate in a critical design review (CDR) with DARPA and IV&V teams detailing specific plans for material test platform construction and a software development plan for continuum material design optimization; performers must include their own unique milestones and deliverables as part of the CDR.

o 14 months FCA: Performers will demonstrate critical function of key subcomponents in their material test and design platforms.

o 21 months FCA: Performers will run full demonstrations of their material test and design platforms meeting the metrics and specifications for each FA (see Section E above).

HR001123S0029 METALS 16

o 34 months FCA: Performers will complete a comprehensive coupled demonstration meeting the metrics and specifications for Phase II (see Section E above).

o 42 months FCA (anticipated in Phase III): Performers will manufacture demonstration parts followed by characterization and testing to establish continuum material proof-of-concept.

o 47 months FCA (anticipated in Phase III): Performers will deliver test platforms and/or design software to interested IV&V or U.S. Government partner labs.

Table 5: Important dates relevant to the METALS schedule and milestones (reported in months following contract award (FCA))

Phase I: Project kick-off 0 months

Phase I: Critical design review (CDR) 6 months

Phase I: Critical function demonstrations 14 months

Phase I: Full FA1 and FA2 system demonstrations 21 months

Phase II: Anticipated start 24 months

Phase II: Coupled system demonstration 34 months

Phase III: Start date (notional) 36 months

Phase III: Manufacturing, characterization, and testing complete establishing continuum material proof-of-concept (notional) 42 months

Phase III: Transition of test platforms and design software to U.S. Government or IV&V partner laboratories (notional) 47 months

All proposals must also include the following meetings and travel in the proposed schedule and costs:

o A one-day project kickoff meeting to be held in Arlington, VA.

o A two-day Principal Investigator (PI) meeting to be held approximately every six months in Arlington, VA. For budgeting purposes, plan for six two-day meetings over the course of 48 months. The CDR will be conducted during the first PI meeting.

o Monthly teleconference meetings will be scheduled with DARPA and the IV&V teams for progress reporting as well as identification and mitigation of technical and programmatic challenges. Proposers should also anticipate at least one site visit per phase by the DARPA Program Manager and/or IV&V team during which performers should provide laboratory tours and demonstrations that illustrate progress toward agreed-upon milestones and metrics.

G. Deliverables

Performers will be expected to provide at a minimum the following deliverables:

o Comprehensive quarterly technical reports due within ten days of the end of the given

HR001123S0029 METALS 17

quarter, describing progress made on the specific milestones as required in the SOW.

o Monthly technical and financial reports (monthly technical report can be delivered via a slide presentation).

o A phase completion report submitted within 30 calendar days of the end of each phase, summarizing the research done.

o Hardware and software, as requested, that may include engineering drawings, operating methods and instructions, software, datasets, material samples, and/or entire developed experimental capabilities.

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

o Reporting as outlined in Section VI.C.

H. Government-furnished Property/Equipment/Information

No Government-furnished property, equipment, or information will be provided. This is subject to change as the program progresses, if warranted.

I. Other Program Objectives and Considerations

1. Collaboration

Throughout the course of the program, performers will be required to share detailed information about their project with DARPA and the IV&V teams. To facilitate collaboration, performer contracts will include an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) clause for portions of the contracts requiring joint participation in the accomplishment of the program requirements. This provision will become a material requirement for any contracts awarded as a result of this BAA.

The ACA clause will include the basis for sharing information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, and/or resources essential to the integration of the program focus areas and components. This clause will ensure appropriate coordination and integration of work by program contractors; ensure complete compatibility between data, tools and services; and prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts and maximize commonality. Without exception, all ACAs must be in place within three months of contract award. See Section VIII.D for a sample ACA clause.

2. Intellectual Property The goal of METALS is to create material test and design tools that can be readily used by U.S.

Government or commercial partners. These tools must be capable of integrating with other existing experimental systems and/or software platforms and, potentially, those being developed by other performers. This includes the ability to easily add, remove, substitute, and modify software and hardware components. Therefore, DARPA anticipates that all non-commercial software (including source code), software documentation, hardware designs and documentation, experimental hardware, and technical data generated by the program will be requested as deliverables to the U.S. Government with a minimum of Government Purpose Rights (GPR), as

HR001123S0029 METALS 18

lesser rights may adversely impact the lifecycle costs of affected items, components, or processes.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

DARPA anticipates multiple awards. The level of funding for individual awards made under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. Awards will be made to proposers1 whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all evaluation factors considered. See Section V for further information.

The Government reserves the right to:

select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation;

make awards without discussions with proposers;

conduct discussions with proposers if it is later determined to be necessary;

segregate portions of resulting awards into pre-priced options;

accept proposals in their entirety or select only portions of proposals for award;

fund awards in increments with options for continued work at the end of one or more phases;

request additional documentation once the award instrument has been determined (e.g., representations and certifications); and remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner.

Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction (OT), depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, 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

1 As used throughout this BAA, “proposer” refers to the lead organization on a submission to this BAA. The proposer is responsible for ensuring that all information required by a BAA--from all team members--is submitted in accordance with the BAA. “Awardee” refers to anyone who might receive a prime award from the Government, including recipients of procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, or Other Transactions. “Subawardee” refers to anyone who might receive a subaward from a prime awardee (e.g., subawardee, consultant, etc.).

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

HR001123S0029 METALS 19

entire prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

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.

University or non-profit research institution performance under this solicitation may include effort categorized as fundamental research. In addition to Government support for free and open scientific exchanges and dissemination of research results in a broad and unrestricted manner, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient, regardless of tier, acknowledges that such research may have implications that are important to U.S. national interests and must be protected against foreign influence and exploitation. As such, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient agrees to comply with the following requirements:

(a) The University or non-profit research institution performer or recipient must establish and maintain an internal process or procedure to address foreign talent programs, conflicts of commitment, conflicts of interest, and research integrity. The academic or non-profit research performer or recipient must also utilize due diligence to identify Foreign Components or participation by Senior/Key Personnel in Foreign Government Talent Recruitment Programs and agree to share such information with the Government upon request.

HR001123S0029 METALS 20

i. The above described information will be provided to the Government as part of the proposal response to the solicitation and will be reviewed and assessed prior to award. Generally, this information will be included in the Research and Related Senior/Key Personnel Profile (Expanded) form (SF-424) required as part the proposer’s submission through Grants.gov.

1. Instructions regarding how to fill out the SF-424 and its biographical sketch can be found through Grants.gov.

ii. In accordance with USD(R&E) direction to mitigate undue foreign influence in DoD-funded science and technology, DARPA will assess all Senior/Key Personnel proposed to support DARPA grants and cooperative agreements for potential undue foreign influence risk factors relating to professional and financial activities. This will be done by evaluating information provided via the SF-424, and any accompanying or referenced documents, in order to identify and assess any associations or affiliations the Senior/Key Personnel may have with foreign strategic competitors or countries that have a history of intellectual property theft, research misconduct, or history of targeting U.S. technology for unauthorized transfer. DARPA’s evaluation takes into consideration the entirety of the Senior/Key Personnel’s SF-424, current and pending support, and biographical sketch, placing the most weight on the Senior/Key Person’s professional and financial activities over the last 4 years. The majority of foreign entities lists used to make these determinations are publicly available. The DARPA Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP) “Senior/Key Personnel Foreign Influence Risk Rubric” details the various risk ratings and factors. The rubric can be seen at the following link:

https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/092021DARPACFIPRubric.pdf

iii. Examples of lists that DARPA leverages to assess potential undue foreign influence factors include, but are not limited to:

1. Executive Order 13959 “Addressing the Threat From Securities Investments That Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies”:

https://…