HR001123S0044.pdf

HR001123S0044 PUMP 1

Broad Agency Announcement Principles of Undersea Magnetohydrodynamic Pumps (PUMP)

Defense Sciences Office

HR001123S0044

May 30, 2023

HR001123S0044 PUMP 2

Table of Contents I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Introduction B. Background C. Program Description/Scope D. Program Structure E. Schedule/Milestones F. Deliverables G. Government-furnished Property/Equipment/Information H. 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

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

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 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

HR001123S0044 PUMP 3

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title: Principles of Undersea Magnetohydrodynamic Pumps

(PUMP)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number: HR001123S0044

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: May 30, 2023 o Proposers Day: May 31, 2023. See Section VIII.A.

o Abstract Due Date: June 13, 2023, 4:00 p.m.

o FAQ Submission Deadline: July 21, 2023, 4:00 p.m. See Section VIII.B.

o Full Proposal Due Date: July 31, 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 Transactions. 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): Susan Swithenbank, Program Manager, DARPA/DSO o BAA Email: PUMP@darpa.mil o BAA Mailing Address:

DARPA/DSO

ATTN: HR001123S0044

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 PUMP program will be an unclassified research program with components that are CUI. PUMP will develop modeling and simulation techniques, demonstrate system performance, and generate test articles that may be considered CUI. For further details see Sections IV.B.4 and IV.B.5.

mailto:ProgramName@darpa.mil https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?oFilter=DSO https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities?oFilter=DSO

HR001123S0044 PUMP 4

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 electrode material solutions for high performance magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) pumps. The Principles of Undersea Magnetohydrodynamic Pumps (PUMP) program will develop and demonstrate MHD pumps that match the efficiency, reduce the noise generation, and exceed the reliability of conventional impeller-based pumps. Additionally, the program will develop multi-physics modeling and simulation capabilities for use in design and analysis of magnetohydrodynamic pumps.

B. Background

There has been interest in MHD technology for more than 60 years; however, limitations in materials for high-field magnets and corrosion-resistant electrodes have restricted efficiency and lifetime for practical applications. Additionally, previously demonstrated systems have had significant size, weight, and power (SWaP) constraints.

For instance, the most efficient MHD drive experimentally tested, the Yamato-1, was publicly demonstrated in 1992. The Yamato-1 had a magnetic field of ~4 T produced by liquid-helium cooled superconducting magnets to ~4 K, a current of ~2,000 A with an electrode size of approximately 130mm by 2800mm, and an overall thrust efficient of ~ 30% 1. For comparison, a conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner uses a 3 T to 4 T magnet, a state-of-the-art chlorine generator has a current density of 0.4-1 A/cm2, and a traditional pump has an efficiency between 70% and 90%. The Yamato-1 electrode materials have a mass loss of approximately 3% per year due to corrosion2. One of the major constraints for the Yamato-1 was the SWaP of the MHD technology. The weight of the six-thruster configuration, which was approximately 100 tons of the 185 ton ship, drove the design and limited the crew size and other capabilities of the ship.

The research and design work following the Yamato-1 experiments identified the two main challenges to overcome to make MHD practical: (1) The need for a higher magnetic field to increase efficiency; and (2) An electrode material system that addresses the effects of hydrolysis, 1 Sasakawa, Y, “YAMATO-1: World’s First Superconducting Magnetohydrodynamic Propulsion Ship”, The Ship and Ocean Foundation, October 1996.

2 Swallom, DW, Sadovnik, I, Gibbs, JS, Gurol, H, Nguyen, LV, and HH Van Den Bergh, “Magnetohydrodynamic Submarine Propulsion Systems”, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol 103, No. 3, May 1991.

HR001123S0044 PUMP 5

bubble collapse erosion, and corrosion and can reliably operate with current and high magnetic fields in seawater, without significant performance degradation over a lifetime of operation.

Regarding the magnetic field for MHD, commercial superconducting magnet manufacturing technology, driven by the nascent fusion energy sector, has increased current densities of the superconductors and sustained large magnetic fields of 20 T at operating temperatures of 20 K.

This has led to better magnet designs and higher field strengths, enabling lower-SWaP designs and reliable production of high-field magnets.

Regarding the electrodes for MHD, battery, fuel cell, and coating research has led to significant advances in electrode materials. Although these advances have not been tested in high magnetic fields or the adverse environment of seawater, combining these advances using multi-physics approaches to include electromagnetics, hydrodynamics, and materials science could guide electrode material system designs capable of meeting the PUMP requirements.

The PUMP program seeks to combine breakthroughs in magnets and electrode material solutions to enable efficient MHD pumps. Leveraging advances in both areas and utilizing modern multi-physics modeling and simulation techniques makes it possible to assess new electrode material systems for MHD pump concepts capable of withstanding a corrosive seawater environment.

C. Program Description/Scope

The PUMP program is a 42-month effort executed over three phases. The program is planned as a 12-month Phase Ia base, a 12-month Phase Ib option, and an 18-month Phase II option. The overall PUMP program objectives are to:

• Phase Ia: Assemble a multi-physics modeling and simulation (M&S) tool(s) including hydrodynamics, electrochemistry, and magnetics to help understand the underlying physics of the MHD environment in order to choose an appropriate electrode material system. These M&S tools will also be able to scale MHD designs from a laboratory demo (i.e.,100 N of thrust) to militarily relevant levels (i.e., 250 kN).

• Phase Ib: Validate M&S tools experimentally and demonstrate an electrode material solution for a MHD seawater environment scalable for sustained shipboard applications (i.e., ≥ 5 years).

• Phase II: Demonstrate a small-scale prototype unit.

In Phase I (a and b), the PUMP performers will develop an electrode material system solution suitable for a militarily significant MHD pump. Phase Ia will focus on modeling and simulation to refine a proposed MHD design, generate the material requirements necessary to meet the Phase I metrics, and initial material testing by the performer. Phase Ib will focus on experimental demonstration of the full electrode material system at a Government Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) facility. The Phase I metrics are focused on developing an electrode material system that can reliably operate over a 5-year duration for shipboard applications.

In Phase II, performers will demonstrate an efficient system in a small-scale prototype MHD unit capable of generating 100 N of force that is traceable to a shipboard application when scaled to 250 kN of force.

HR001123S0044 PUMP 6

Table 1: PUMP Program Metrics Technical Outcomes Metric Phase I (a/b)* Phase II

Current < 10% change** -- Conductivity < 30% change** -- Mass Loss < 5% per year** --

Electrode Material Systems

Strain < 20% change** -- Initial Efficiency -- Objective > 70% Thrust -- > 100 N

Multi-Physics Testing

Reynolds Number -- Fully Turbulent Modeling Multi- Physics

SWaP Scalability -- The M&S tool should match the experimentally derived efficiency within 5%.

Traceable to shipboard application when scaled to 250 kN (submarine)

* Phase I metrics are for both Phases Ia and Ib.

** Under target conditions and extrapolated for 5-year lifetime at 75% duty cycle

Figure 1: PUMP Program Timeline

MHD Approaches There are two fundamental approaches to MHD: conductive and inductive. Each approach has unique advantages and challenges when operating in seawater The conductive approach uses conductive electric and magnetic fields. The conductive approach is expected to operate with a steady state magnetic flux and steady state current for a given thrust. However, unless advanced bubble management solutions are employed, the conductive

HR001123S0044 PUMP 7

approach is prone to bubble buildup on the electrodes, thus, potentially limiting the efficiency and thrust.

Conversely, inductive approaches operate with time-varying magnetic flux synchronized with time-varying current to maintain a given thrust. A potential advantage of inductive design is that hydrolysis can be reduced or eliminated. However, the potential advantage of bubble management may not offset the additional control complexity and potential efficiency losses due to alternating fields.

It is anticipated that awards will be made for both inductive and conductive approaches. The proposed electrode material system solution should be compatible with the proposer’s anticipated MHD pump design. Proposers who wish to propose both conductive and inductive approaches must submit a separate proposal for each.

Proposers should describe their magnetic field design concept and assumptions for a large-scale shipboard system that can generate 250 kN of thrust in their proposals, including relevant details on traditional or superconducting magnets, and the anticipated SWaP constraints of that choice.

For the lab-scale demonstration MHD pump, proposers should describe the magnetic field concept and provide detailed justification of how the lab-scale demonstration will be used to validate their models and subsequently scaled to larger applications. If the magnetic field design concept for lab-scale demonstration is different than the concept choice for a larger scale, then proposer should address how the lab-scale demonstration is traceable to the larger applications.

Proposers should fully consider the total power needed to operate the lab- and large-scale concepts to provide credible justification of their scalability claims. For example, if superconducting magnets are chosen for a concept, then proposers should include the relevant factors, such as the estimated operating temperature, anticipated auxiliary cooling, powering, and power conditioning systems.

Electrode Material System For the purposes of this BAA an “electrode material system” will include an anode and cathode that may contain some of the following characteristics: a unique geometry to mitigate effects of hydrolysis, coatings to mitigate corrosion and erosion, a gas-permeable electrode that prevents increased resistance by diffusing bubbles, or other innovations necessary to meet program metrics. This is not an exhaustive list; unique and innovative solutions are encouraged. Proposers should state all of their assumptions about the operating environment in the proposal. Proposers should include all variables pertinent to their pump design in their proposal, including seawater density, salinity, temperature, and viscosity as well as any other relevant variables.

Phase I (a and b) will focus on developing an electrode material solution based on detailed multi-physics modeling and laboratory testing to anchor the scaling and design of a 250 kN thrust MHD design. The proposed electrode material solution should take into consideration operating conditions (e.g., flow rate, temperature, salinity, density), magnetic field strength, electric current, SWaP, and scalability. Additionally, proposed solutions must address the complex environmental challenges that reduce the efficiency and lifetime of electrodes. These include, but are not limited to, hydrolysis, corrosion, and bubble erosion.

o Hydrolysis can cause hydrogen to build on the cathode, and oxygen and chlorine to collect on the anode. These bubbles will increase the resistance of the system and reduce

HR001123S0044 PUMP 8

efficiency. A mechanism to mitigate bubble build up on the electrodes will likely be needed to achieve the Phase II efficiency requirement.

o Corrosion can be accelerated by seawater electrolytes, electric current, and magnetic fields. Corrosion leads to mass loss in the electrode, increased structural stress, and oxidation and erosion of the electrode surface, reducing efficiency. Additionally, changes in the electrochemistry can cause calcareous build up on the electrodes.

o Erosion can be caused by the collapse of bubbles on the surface of the electrodes. Erosion can lead to mass loss in the electrode and increased structural stress, also reducing efficiency.

These electrode material issues are previously identified in literature3as important for improving efficiency and life. Secondary effects, such as eddy current losses, may further degrade the efficient operation of a MHD pump. These secondary effects should be described in the concept design, as appropriate.

In Phase Ia, performers must demonstrate in silico the ability to meet the Phase I metrics. The materials performance will be derived from multi-physics M&S conducted by the performers.

The performer will deliver an engineering analysis based on their M&S framework that estimates the performance parameters listed in Table 1. This analysis must include all assumptions and modeling parameters (duty cycle, operating conditions, start-of-life performance, mesh size, number of simulations, etc.) and specific features that may be proposed to improve performance (including, but not limited to, geometric features, architecture, coatings, composition, specific operating modes, etc.). Moreover, performers must provide expected constraints to their model (e.g., boundary conditions where their model does not apply, conditions where operating regimes may be discontinuous, uncertainty quantification, etc.) and initial validation of the multi-physics model with existing data sets or initial laboratory measurements. Performers should also provide a validation approach that details how specific laboratory measurements will be made (either by the performer or the Government IV&V team) to validate their model in both Phases Ia and Ib.

In Phase Ib, the performer will produce and deliver test articles to the Government IV&V team to experimentally validate material performance on the developed electrode material system. The testing will measure the system’s performance relative to the metrics listed in Table 1 and predict the results over the lifetime of the material system. The test articles shall consist of a minimum of three (3) replicate samples, each no smaller than 6” x 12” x 0.25” in size. Performer-conducted laboratory testing can occur in parallel with Government IV&V testing, but samples for Government IV&V testing must be delivered to the IV&V team no later than three (3) months after Phase Ib start. Note that only the IV&V-measured performance will be used to determine performance relative to the program metrics; performer-conducted testing only informs performers’ M&S refinement. Phase Ib performers must experimentally meet their M&S predicted performance (within 10% or their quantified uncertainty, whichever is lower) with a feasible lab-scale demonstration approach.

3 Gilbert, J.B and T.F. Lin, “Studies of MHD Propulsion for Underwater Vehicles and Seawater Conductivity Enhancements”, PennState Applied Research Laboratory Annual Report 1 Feb. 1990 to 31 Jan 1991., DTIC AD- A231 623

HR001123S0044 PUMP 9

In Phases Ia and Ib, the metrics are designed to demonstrate material reliability in MHD extreme environments as well as lifetime integrity. The metrics were chosen for the following reasons:

The magnetic field can create a back electromagnetic field (EMF) that can change the current of the system. The change in current would adversely affect efficiency.

The conductivity of the electrode system is reduced by electrode corrosion and bubbles from hydrolysis, creating additional resistance in the system. The change in conductivity would adversely affect efficiency.

Mass loss is a sign of corrosion or erosion of the electrodes. The mass loss could potentially change the structural integrity of the electrode and reduce efficiency.

Increased strain can reduce the structural integrity of the system, requiring additional safety factors that increase the overall system weight. Additional weight is undesirable for shipboard applications.

The Government IV&V team will determine the conditions and facility needed for testing the electrodes, but will take into consideration each performer’s proposed validation approach, as proposed in Phase Ia. The IV&V testing environment will be determined based on the proposed designs, M&S by the IV&V team, available test environments, and each performer’s validation approach. DARPA and the IV&V team will consider proposer-requested IV&V tests in Phase Ib, but cannot guarantee all requested tests can or will be performed; all tests must fit within the time, budget, and other constraints of the program. The metrics will be extrapolated using the Government IV&V modeling tools.

Modeling and Simulation In Phase Ia, the performer will develop M&S approaches capable of assessing MHD designs and electrode material solutions. The resulting M&S tools must integrate a multi-physics environment that accounts for the effects of electromagnetics, hydrodynamics, and electrochemistry of the electrode material systems at various length and time scales, while operating in seawater. Performers must describe the intended addressable parameter space (i.e., conductive/inductive, geometric limitations, operating condition limitations, lifting and transport, transient/steady-state, etc.) as well as required testing for experimental validation (key operating conditions, preferred number of tests, uncertainty, etc.). M&S tools should be adaptable to future MHD systems with the potential for different working fluids. The M&S tools should accurately model an MHD system and predict its efficiency, taking into account effects from the magnetic fields, current density, materials degradation, and hydrolysis. The M&S tools may include both theoretical and experimental modeling and should evolve as the program progresses.

Proposers will use the M&S tools in Phase I to predict and guide design decisions based on the predicted performance of the electrode material system solution. The proposer’s work plan should mature the M&S tools sufficiently early to enable a programmatic decision prior to exercising Phase Ib option. The in silico analysis of the materials compared to the Phase I metrics is due ten (10) months after contract award. The M&S tool must be ready to support this analysis and provide a white paper of the results to the Government IV&V team. The Phase Ib option decision will be based on the M&S tool’s prediction of the materials metrics in Table 1.

The tool should be able to model the interactions between the hydrodynamics, electrochemistry, and magnetics to accurately predict the Phase I metrics. In Phase II, the M&S tool must match the experimentally derived efficiency within 5%. The final deliverable is expected to be a

HR001123S0044 PUMP 10

validated set of design tools with source code and documentation included that can be incorporated into future Government efforts.

Phase II Demonstration Test In Phase II, performers will build a prototype pump that can generate a minimum of 100 N of force. The pump should be no larger than 2 m by 0.6 m by 0.6m meters, not including any cryogenic cooling system, if needed. The flow inside the pump should be fully turbulent such that the representative physics can be scaled to larger applications.

Proposals should include a discussion on anticipated critical components that accounts for magnets, electrodes, power electronics, and cooling and auxiliary components required to demonstrate a prototype. A clear path to achieving 70% efficiency as well as physics-limited efficiency must be outlined. Efficiency is defined as:

𝜂𝑒 =

𝐵𝑈𝑖𝑛ℎ

𝑉 where:

B = Magnetic Field

Uin = Fluid Velocity h = Duct Height

V = Voltage Across Electrodes

Testing Environments Initial testing of the electrode material solution will be conducted by the performers during Phase Ia. Performers must detail the laboratory testing they intend to complete in Phase Ia, that when combined with existing data sets, will refine the M&S approach used to choose the electrode material system. These validation tests could include lab-scale tests in a single- or multi-physics environment and may differ from the Phase Ib tests and Phase I metrics.

For any lab-scale testing conducted by the performers in Phase Ia, the performers will provide the samples and the data validating the materials chosen for the most promising electrodes to the Government IV&V team at the end of Phase Ia. During Phase Ib, the full electrode material system will be tested at the Government IV&V facility. Provided there is sufficient program funding and testing bandwidth, DARPA anticipates that performers may be able to test more than one iteration of improved MHD electrodes.

Additional samples may be considered for IV&V testing during Phase II. Performers must detail the extent of their testing and estimate a suitable support level, including anticipated number of tests, frequency of tests, and materials, labor, and travel for each test, for the IV&V testing of electrodes. Proposals should account for procurement and product lead time.

In Phase I, there may not yet be a test environment with a large-scale magnetic field, high current, and seawater. Proposals must describe how the challenges to simulate these environments using single-physics tests to validate simulations will be addressed. Describe the

HR001123S0044 PUMP 11

strength of electric and current fields needed for testing that is representative of a larger scalable system.

HR001123S0044 PUMP 12

Required Proposal Technical Information Proposal must include:

A conceptual MHD thruster design that details required field strength, current density, any cooling requirements, and projected thrust capability. The design should be traceable for shipboard applications with 250 kN of thrust.

A clear and specific approach to M&S of the multi-physics environment, including the following details and considerations: computational method, computational efficiency, code development/modification plans, and how phenomenology will be coupled

A clear and specific approach to produce the required magnetic field, including magnet type, field strength, operating temperature, power requirements, and other operational considerations

An initial concept for the electrode material system and an approach to iterating on the concept, including intended M&S as well as any laboratory testing

Detailed technical rationale on why the proposed concept design and electrode material system can achieve the program goals and metrics

Laboratory testing plan for the electrode material system that can be traced to a full-scale system

Defined assumptions, risks/challenges, and mitigation plans based on defined approach

A clear and specific approach to conduct SWaP analysis for a large-scale system A clear and specific plan of how M&S will aid in a scalability study A description of the proposer’s manufacturing capabilities for building the Phase II small-scale MHD pump Proposers must demonstrate their understanding of the PUMP technical challenges and explain how their approach will address all challenges in both phases.

D. Program Structure

The PUMP program is a 42-month effort executed over two phases. Proposals must be structured as a 12-month Phase Ia base, a 12-month Phase Ib option, and an 18-month Phase II option.

The decision to proceed to Phase Ib of the program will be dependent on the performer’s engineering analysis of the electrode material system (M&S and any initial test data, if available, to verify the model), providing sufficient validation that the Phase I metrics can be achieved.

Proceeding to Phase II of the program will depend on the results of the Government IV&V testing of the electrode material system, the preliminary design of the Phase II pump, and the scalability study as well as the availability of funds.

Phase Ia (12-month base) is the system and component level M&S, with initial experimental component demonstration of the electrode material system:

Developing M&S tools that couple the multi-physics environments, including (but not limited to) effects from electromagnetism, hydrodynamics, and electrochemistry;

these tools will be used to evaluate and iterate on the electrode material system solution as well as to evaluate design parameters for MHD pump

HR001123S0044 PUMP 13

Determination and testing of electrode material solutions by the performers at the coupon level

Exercising the M&S tools to evaluate the electrode material system and iterate to a solution that can meet the Phase I metrics and predict the Phase I metrics for the chosen electrode material system solution

Phase Ib (12-month option) is the testing the full electrode material system and refining/validating the M&S tools:

Continuing development of M&S tools that couple the multi-physics environments, including (but not limited to) effects from electromagnetism, hydrodynamics, and electrochemistry; these tools will continue to be used to evaluate and iterate on the electrode material system solution as well as to evaluate design parameters for MHD pumps

Testing of electrode material solutions by the performers and the Government IV&V team to validate M&S

Using validated M&S tools to map out performers’ prototypic test environments and how to appropriately test solutions in ways that are scalable to pumps that generate up to 250 kN

Using the M&S tools to design an MHD system that is capable of producing 100 N while fully turbulent, with an objective efficiency of 70%

Using the M&S tools to demonstrate credible prediction of the metrics to show how the design is scalable to larger shipboard-sized applications that can achieve the Phase II metrics (250 kN) and any modifications necessary to achieve that level of force

Phase II (18-month option) is designed to show efficiency at a large enough scale to mimic the physics at shipboard application scales. Show the materials and designs are able to scale to larger shipboard applications using the validated M&S tools will give confidence in the future applicability of the technology:

Manufacturing a small-scale prototype capable of generating 100 N force, with an objective goal of 70% efficiency

Delivering operating manuals, standard operating procedures, and operating curves for the prototype

Benchmarking the M&S codes based on the experimental results Executing the scalability study to analyze system feasibility and the SWaP for shipboard applications up to 250 kN Providing a cost analysis for shipboard applications up to 250 kN; the cost analysis should be limited to the MHD pump and all associated auxiliary systems (cooling, power delivery, etc.)

Transitioning developed M&S software and all relevant documentation to one or two interested IV&V laboratories or other U.S. Government stakeholders and assisting in training personnel to operate the new capabilities; this transition includes the code as well as operating manuals

Subject matter experts at U.S. Government laboratories and a University Affiliated 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

HR001123S0044 PUMP 14

and/or system performance. Performers will be expected to work openly and regularly with DARPA and designated Government IV&V teams throughout the program. Proposals must include a task to reflect interaction with DARPA and IV&V teams (containing approximately three IV&V team participating locations) 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 PUMP or potentially participating in program activities should contact DARPA at PUMP@darpa.mil.

E. Schedule/Milestones

Proposers must provide a technical and programmatic strategy that conforms to the entire program schedule for Phases Ia, Ib, and II.

Proposals must present aggressive plans to fully address program goals, metrics, milestones, and deliverables. The task structure must be consistent across the proposed schedule, Statement of Work (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:

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

6 months following contract award (FCA): Performers will participate in a technical review of their modeling progress and provide a complete electrode material system concept and the plan for testing and iteration of the concept.

10 months FCA: Performers will provide a white paper that documents the results from their M&S tools to show that the electrode material system concept will meet Phase I metrics.

11 month FCA: Performer will provide data on Phase Ia lab-scale material testing and material coupon samples.

15 months FCA: Performers will provide electrode material system test articles to the Government for IV&V testing. The test articles shall consist of a minimum of three (3) replicate samples, each no smaller than 6” x 12” x 0.25” in size.

21 months FCA: Performers will participate in a preliminary design review (PDR) with DARPA and IV&V teams detailing specific plans for a pump design that meets the Phase II metrics.

23 months FCA: Performers will deliver a report on the scalability of the design to 250 kN of thrust.

26 months FCA: Performers will participate in Phase II pump concept design review

(CDR).

36 months FCA: Performers will deliver a functional pump prototype that is designed to meet the Phase II metric to the Government for validation and verification testing.

41 months FCA: Performers will transition all equipment and design software to interested IV&V and U.S. Government transition partners.

mailto:PUMP@darpa.mil

HR001123S0044 PUMP 15

42 month FCA: Performers deliver a final report on scalability to 250 kN.

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

One-day program kickoff meetings to be held in Arlington, VA at the beginning of Phases Ia, Ib, and II.

To continue integration and development and foster collaboration between the team and the Government IV&V team as well as disseminate program developments, a meeting will be held approximately every three months, with locations split between the Washington DC area and the vendor site.

Additionally, the performers should provide support to IV&V testing, which will occur at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Corrosion Test Facility in Key West. The proposal should plan for two (2) three-day trips to NRL in both Phase Ib and Phase II (four trips total).

Regular teleconference meetings will be scheduled with the Government team for progress reporting as well as problem identification and mitigation.

F. Deliverables

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

Comprehensive quarterly technical reports due within ten days of the end of the given quarter, describing progress made on the specific milestones as required in the SOW.

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

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.

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

Reporting as outlined in Section VI.C.

G. 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.

HR001123S0044 PUMP 16

H. 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.

2. Intellectual Property The goal of PUMP is to create electrode material systems 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 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. DARPA has interest in funding proposals based on both inductive and conductive fields.

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 proposers4 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;

4 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.).

HR001123S0044 PUMP 17

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 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.

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

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this solicitation if: (1) that participant in the OT, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT, successfully completed the entire prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

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

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

HR001123S0044 PUMP 18

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.

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

HR001123S0044 PUMP 19

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://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf

2. The U.S. Department of Education’s College Foreign Gift and Contract Report: College Foreign Gift Reporting (ed.gov)

3. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, List of Parties of Concern: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern

4. Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) Chinese Talent Program Tracker:

https://chinatalenttracker.cset.tech

5. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) “World Wide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”: 2021 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (dni.gov)

6. Various Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) products regarding targeting of US technologies, adversary targeting of academia, and the exploitation of academic experts: https://www.dcsa.mil/

(b) DARPA’s analysis and assessment of affiliations and associations of Senior/Key Personnel is compliant with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Information regarding race, color, or national origin is not collected and does not have bearing in DARPA’s assessment.

(c) University or non-profit research institutions with proposals selected for negotiation that have been assessed as having high or very high undue foreign influence risk, will be given an opportunity during the negotiation process to mitigate the risk. DARPA reserves the right to request any follow-up information needed to assess risk or mitigation strategies.

i. Upon conclusion of the negotiations, if DARPA determines, despite any proposed mitigation terms (e.g. mitigation plan, alternative research personnel), the https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/092021DARPACFIPRubric.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf https://sites.ed.gov/foreigngifts/ https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern https://chinatalenttracker.cset.tech/ https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2204-2021-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2204-2021-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community https://www.dcsa.mil/

HR001123S0044 PUMP 20

participation of any Senior/Key Research Personnel still represents high risk to the program, or proposed mitigation affects the Government’s confidence in proposer’s capability to successfully complete the research (e.g., less qualified Senior/Key Research Personnel) the Government may determine not to award the proposed effort. Any decision not to award will be predicated upon reasonable disclosure of the pertinent facts and reasonable discussion of any possible alternatives while balancing program award timeline requirements.

(d) Failure of the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient to reasonably exercise due diligence to discover or ensure that neither it nor any of its Senior/Key Research Personnel involved in the subject award are participating in a Foreign Government Talent Program or have a Foreign Component with an a strategic competitor or country with a history of targeting U.S. technology for unauthorized transfer may result in the Government exercising remedies in accordance with federal law and regulation.

i. If, at any time, during performance of this research award, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient should learn that it, its Senior/Key Research Personnel, or applicable team members or subtier performers on this award are or are believed to be participants in a Foreign Government Talent Program or have Foreign Components with a strategic competitor or country with a history of targeting U.S. technology for unauthorized transfer , the performer or recipient will notify the Government Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer within 5 business days.

1. This disclosure must include specific information as to the personnel involved and the nature of the situation and relationship.