HR001123S0047.pdf

HR001123S0047

Broad Agency Announcement Advanced Sources for Single-event

Effects Radiation Testing (ASSERT) Microsystems Technology Office

July 5, 2023

Table of Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Background B. Program Description C. Program Structure D. Technical Area(s) E. Schedule/Milestones F. Deliverables G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information H. Intellectual Property

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

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants

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

2. Other Applicants

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

1. Abstract Format

2. Full Proposal Format

3. Proprietary Information

4. Security Information

a. Program Security Information

b. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

i. CUI Proposal Markings

ii. CUI Submission Requirements

c. Unclassified Submissions

5. Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls

6. Human Subjects Research (HSR)/Animal Use

7. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

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

9. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

10. Intellectual Property

a. For Procurement Contracts

b. For All Non-Procurement Contracts

11. Patents

12. System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements ...44

C. Submission Information

1. Submission Dates and Times

a. Abstract Due Date

b. Full Proposal Date

c. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

2. Abstract Submission Information

3. Proposal Submission Information

a. For Proposers Requesting Cooperative Agreements:

b. For Proposers Requesting Other Transaction for Research Agreements

c. For Proposers Requesting Procurement Contracts or Other Transaction Agreements and submitting to a DARPA-approved Proposal Submissions Website

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria

1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission

3. Cost and Schedule Realism

B. Review and Selection Process

1. Review Process

2. Handling of Source Selection Information

3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)

4. Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP)

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices

1. Abstracts

2. Proposals

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

2. Solicitation Provisions and Award Clauses, Terms and Conditions Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Controlled Technical Information (CTI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

3. Representations and Certifications

4. Terms and Conditions

C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

2. i-Edison

3. Vault

4. DARPA Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative (EEI)

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Proposers Day B. University Student and Researcher Funding

ATTACHMENT 1: Cost Volume Proposer Checklist ATTACHMENT 2: Proposal Summary Slide Template ATTACHMENT 3: General MTO Controlled Unclassified Information Guide (CUIG)

ATTACHMENT 4: Other Transactions (OT) Certifications Template ATTACHMENT 5: DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title: Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing (ASSERT)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number: HR001123S0047 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA): 12.910 Research and

Technology Development Dates: (All times listed herein are Eastern Time) o Posting Date: July 5, 2023 o Proposers Day: July 13, 2023 o Abstract Due Date August 4, 2023 at 4:00 PM o FAQ Submission Deadline: August 31, 2023 at 4:00 PM o Proposal Due Date: September 15, 2023 at 4:00 PM o Estimated period of performance start: February 2024

Concise description of the funding opportunity: The Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing (ASSERT) program will develop new capabilities for single-event effect (SEE) testing of 3D heterogeneously integrated (3DHI) electronic components and circuits. These capabilities will transform the current radiation-hardened electronics design and development process, resulting in the rapid deployment of next generation electronics to space and strategic warfighters. Key program goals include the generation of energetic particles with penetration depths of up to 5 mm in silicon with high-radiation-relevant linear energy transfers (LETs) and beam diameters < 0.2 µm.

Anticipated individual awards: Multiple awards are anticipated.

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

Agency contact:

o Dr. David K. Abe, Program Manager BAA Coordinator: HR001123S0047@darpa.mil

DARPA/MTO

ATTN: HR001123S0047

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

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

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

The Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) at DARPA seeks innovative proposals for the research and development of experimental radiation sources and techniques for single-event effects (SEE) testing of advanced node and 3D heterogeneously integrated (3DHI) electronics.

The ASSERT (Advanced Sources for Single-event Effects Radiation Testing) program comprises a single Technical Area that addresses two principal Technical Challenges (TC1 and TC2): TC1 deep penetration depths with space-radiation-relevant linear energy transfers (LETs)1; and TC2 charge tracks with fine spatial resolution. The two challenges are interconnected and proposals must respond to both. The program is expected to be

UNCLASSIFIED.

Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

A. Background

Radiation threatens electronic systems from three main natural sources – galactic cosmic rays, charged particles trapped by planetary magnetic fields, and solar particle events – and from man-made sources such as particle accelerators, reactors, and nuclear weapons. Electronics are susceptible to upset, degradation, and failure resulting from total ionizing dose (TID), displacement damage dose (DDD), and the instantaneous response to single ionizing particles, i.e., “single-event effects” (SEE). In particular, SEEs threaten the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, spacecraft, avionics, and terrestrial systems such as server farms and autonomous vehicles.

1 Linear energy transfer (LET) is a key SEE test parameter and is measure of the energy deposited per unit length as an energetic particle travels through a material. Space-radiation-relevant LETs fall in the range of 0.1 to 100 MeV-cm2/mg.

Today, the principal method for SEE testing in the U.S. relies on heavy-ion sources that produce large diameter beams for part- and board-level radiation qualification of electronics.2 These sources produce relatively large beam spot areas ranging from a few square centimeters to up to 60 cm × 60 cm with penetration depths up to hundreds of microns.3 However, emerging advanced electronics are more complex and highly integrated than previous generations, potentially combining digital, analog, and optical functions using 3D topologies and multiple material types. 3D components are expected to reach multiple millimeters in vertical extent with a complexity and level of integration that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to de-package and disaggregate into constituent parts to perform radiation testing using current heavy-ion sources.

SEE testing of fully-integrated components will require an irradiation source that provides a combination of multi-millimeter penetration depths, space-radiation-relevant LETs, and fine spatial resolution and control to provide the linear and angular precision necessary to probe sensitive areas and to isolate faults. Current SEE testing methods are unable to simultaneously meet all of these requirements, necessitating the development of new sources and techniques to characterize and qualify next-generation microelectronics for applications in DoD strategic programs and space, airborne, and terrestrial missions requiring high reliability in radiation environments. Furthermore, data from ASSERT sources must be validated by comparison to relevant heavy-ion data to demonstrate that the new SEE sources can accurately reproduce device responses resulting from strategic and space radiation environments.

The process of testing with ion beams is slow and laborious, a problem exacerbated by the increasing complexity of electronics. In addition to providing new capabilities for 3DHI radiation qualification, ASSERT sources must be compact and cost-effective to enable implementation in laboratory and industrial settings where they can become incorporated into the development process. In this way, radiation qualification will be integrated throughout the design and fabrication flow, with ASSERT sources providing the means to rapidly identify radiation design flaws and to facilitate swift correction and design optimizations. A key program goal is to reduce the time from design to radiation-qualified component by a factor of ten.

In support of the development of innovative sources for SEE characterization of advanced node and 3D electronics, the ASSERT program will address two key interrelated Technical Challenges (TCs).

Technical Challenge #1: Achieving deep penetration depths

SEE qualification of 3D device topologies and stacked packaging will require charge tracks that deliver space-radiation-relevant LETs at deep penetration depths. Sources should be capable of producing LETs ranging from 0.1 to 100 MeV-cm2/mg while simultaneously achieving penetration depths up to 5 mm in silicon. Furthermore, energetic particles should be able to penetrate relevant packaging, oxides, overlayers, metallization, etc. without the need for de-lidding, substrate thinning, or other time consuming and potentially destructive methods.

2 A. Rusek, “NASA Space Radiation Laboratory,” Domestic High-Energy Single-Event Effects (HiSEE) Testing Users Meeting, 13 April 2021.

3 Rusek, 8.

Current alternatives to heavy-ion approaches are unable to simultaneously meet LET, penetration depth, and spatial requirements for 3DHI characterization. Ion microbeam approaches4 operate at relatively low beam energies to enable fine focusing but, as a result, have penetration depths that are limited to tens of microns. Pulsed laser approaches have demonstrated fine spatial resolution and, recently, excellent correlation with heavy-ion test data.5 However, the pulsed laser approach requires optical access to the devices-under-test (DUTs) and is unable to penetrate metallization, packaging, and surfaces with even moderate roughness.

Technical Challenge #2: Achieving fine spatial resolution

Emerging 3D devices are more complex and highly integrated than devices of the previous decade and will require sub-micron beams with the linear and angular precision necessary to selectively probe the sensitive areas of a chip and to isolate the faults caused by resulting charge tracks. The shape and lateral extent of the deposited charge profile is critical to reproducing the device response induced by a heavy-ion strike. In addition to the spatial extent of the charge profile, the position of the charge profile must be known with sufficient accuracy to enable selective probing of the DUT.

Existing ion-based approaches – both heavy-ion and ion microbeams – cannot meet this goal due to mass, energy, and beam space charge limitations that prevent fine focusing using electrostatic or magnetic means, or because of low beam energies that limit penetration depths. Pulsed laser alternatives can achieve the necessary spatial resolution and positioning accuracy but their need for clear, unmetallized surfaces renders them unusable for many advanced and emerging electronic topologies.

B. Program Description

The ASSERT program seeks to develop novel, compact SEE test sources and techniques to enable the radiation-hardness characterization of advanced 3D components, inform new device designs and selection, update radiation-hardening-by-design (RHBD) rules, and validate new computational models and simulation tools. ASSERT sources will be used to characterize mixed-signal devices containing a multiplicity of materials including but not limited to silicon, GaAs, wide bandgap materials such as SiC and GaN, and emerging ultrawide bandgap materials such as cubic boron nitride, gallium oxide, and silicon nitride.

For ASSERT sources to become a part of the standard for SEE testing and qualification, they must be able to produce effects that are comparable to those resulting from high radiation environments. Historically, this has been achieved using an empirical correlation approach in which existing heavy-ion beam data are used to inform testing using a proposed alternative source. The alternative source parameters are chosen to reproduce the known heavy-ion responses (i.e., single-event upsets, latchups, transients, etc.) in the DUT. However, identifying the conditions for empirical correlation can be time consuming, as the alternative source

4 R.A. Reed et al., “Single-event effects ground testing and on-orbit rate prediction methods: The past, present, and future,” IEEE Trans. on Nuclear Science 50(3), Jun. 2003.

5 J.M. Hales et al., “Quantitative prediction of ion-induced single-event transients in an operational amplifier using a quasi-Bessel beam pulsed-laser approach,” IEEE Trans. on Nuclear Science 70(4), 2023.

parameter space can be large. Furthermore, this correlation approach requires the availability of pre-existing heavy-ion data to determine the conditions for generating a SEE response at a prescribed LET value. These data are not available for emerging 3D and heterogeneously integrated components.

In contrast, a predictive approach does not rely on pre-existing heavy-ion data. Instead, source parameters are selected to produce a specified carrier distribution within the DUT that is representative of the expected operational environment. To achieve this, the ability to calculate the Equivalent LET (LETE) is critical, requiring the simulation of the ASSERT source-generated carrier distribution and accurate characterization of the source parameters. Success in ASSERT will be measured, in part, by the accuracy of predicting the heavy-ion response in electronic components using the proposed source. Target DUTs will increase in complexity during the course of the program and include devices such as large area diodes, operational amplifiers, memory devices, and complex system-on-a-chip devices. A list of devices will be provided at program kickoff and relevant heavy-ion data will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI).

The ASSERT program metrics include:

LETs that can be varied over the range of 0.1 to 100 MeV-cm2/mg at the sensitive region of the DUT

Independently variable penetration depths up to 5 mm in silicon Spot diameters o <1 µm at the surface of the DUT (Phases 1 and 2) o <0.2 µm at 5 mm penetration depth (Phase 3)

Development and validation of a predictive SEE testing approach using ASSERT sources

In addition to the program metrics, ASSERT sources should meet the following requirements:

Beam penetration through metallization and packaging without de-lidding, substrate thinning, backside illumination, etc.

Beam position accuracy 1 µm at the surface of the DUT (Phase 2); 0.2 µm at 5 mm penetration into the DUT (Phase 3) [Note 1]

Maximum pulse width of 2 ps FWHM (full-width half max) Pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of 1,000 Hz (minimum) [Note 2] Overall system volume <61 m3 (i.e., the interior volume of a 40-foot shipping container,

11.2 m × 2.2 m × 2.3 m) [Note 3]

[Note 1] “Position accuracy” may be accomplished by beam steering, mechanical positioning of the DUT relative to the beam, or any combination thereof. Other methods may be proposed. In all cases, proposals should include sufficient technical information to enable an assessment of the feasibility of the approach as well as the method(s) by which the beam position will be measured and monitored.

[Note 2] The PRF addresses testing throughput, i.e., the ability to generate statistically-significant quantities of data from realistic components in a reasonable amount of time. The PRF may be user-defined as long as a justification is provided.

[Note 3] The “system volume” includes the source, electrical power conditioning, power supplies/storage, thermal management, vacuum system, beam optics, and triggering and controls. To promote access to the source technologies, a priority will be placed on proposed solutions with the size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) that supports the widest possible dissemination of ASSERT sources throughout the academic, commercial, and U.S.

government SEE testing communities.

Proposals shall also identify potential transition partners and describe how proposed sources would be integrated into the microelectronic design and development process to disruptively shorten the time required to test and qualify radiation-hardened components.

To meet program metrics, potential approaches may use pulses of alternative energetic particles or photons to circumvent the fundamental tradeoffs between range and LET associated with heavy ions. Other approaches may be proposed for consideration provided they can meet overall program goals and metrics. All proposals should provide sufficient technical information to support the feasibility of the proposed approach to simultaneously achieve the fine spatial resolution, high LET, and millimeter penetration depths necessary for 3DHI characterization.

Examples of technologies of interest include but are not limited to:

Short-pulse relativistic electron beams.6 The range and stopping power of electrons have been well-characterized in a wide variety of materials. While individual electrons have a significantly lower energy transfer rate compared with ions, bunches of electrons aggregated in femtosecond-duration pulses have the potential to achieve space-radiation-relevant LETs with millimeter ranges in silicon and can penetrate metallization and packaging. This approach is enabled by the recent development of multi-MeV, femtosecond electron sources for ultrafast, time-resolved imaging of atomic and molecular dynamics.7

Ultrashort pulse (USP) X-rays. USP X-rays are another technique that can generate lengthy charge tracks with LETs relevant to space radiation environments. In this case, an incident X-ray photon interacts with the semiconductor material and transfers energy through the photoelectric effect. For example, a 2017 study demonstrated that X-ray pulses can produce radiation effects comparable to laser SEE data using femtosecond titanium sapphire (Ti:sapphire) laser interactions with a gallium target.8 Potential

6 V. Wyrwoll et al., “Pulsed electron beam induced SEU effects in SRAM memory,” 2021 21th European Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems (RADECS), Vienna, Austria, 2021, pp. 1-7.

7 A. Grabenhofer et al., “Development of an ultra-short pulse electron beam source for advanced accelerator/radiation source research at Northern Illinois University,” IEEE Int. Vacuum Electronics Conference, 22-24 April 2014.

8 M.P. Belova et al., “Investigation of ionizing transients by femtosecond X-ray source ionization,” Proc. 30th Int.

Conference on Microelectronics, 9-11 October 2017.

implementations include tabletop-laser-generated X-ray sources and X-ray free electron lasers (FELs).

C. Program Structure

The total ASSERT program duration will be 54 months organized in a three-phase effort: 18-month Phase 1 (Base); 24-month Phase 2 (Option); and 12-month Phase 3 (Option). In Phase 1, multiple awards are anticipated. It is expected that fewer performers will be funded to participate in Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the program. Options may be exercised, at the Government’s sole discretion, based on technical progress and funding availability.

The program comprises a single Technical Area that addresses the two principal Technical Challenges (TCs) described in the previous section. The TCs are interrelated and proposals shall provide integrated solutions that simultaneously address both challenges.

Figure 1: ASSERT phase structure and schedule.

The objectives for each program phase are:

Phase 1 (Base) – The principal objectives of Phase 1 are to design a high energy particle source for SEE testing and to demonstrate that the approach is capable of meeting ASSERT program requirements and metrics as summarized in Table I. In Phase 1, the feasibility of the proposed approach shall be supported by proof-of-concept demonstrations. These demonstrations can be made with computational simulations or by experimental means; a combination of both would be considered the most compelling.

Computational simulations shall be physics-based and of sufficient rigor to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach and to allow a realistic assessment of the level of technical risk. Proof-of-concept experiments must demonstrate that the source concept is capable of producing SEE responses in known devices and be accompanied by computational simulations that provide evidence that the source concept is capable of meeting the full Phase 1 metrics. Performers must justify the Phase 1 simulation approach(es) and support the viability of the source design to meet final program objectives.

There are no system volume constraints on Phase 1 proof-of-concept experiments. For example, experimental studies conducted at larger accelerator or synchrotron facilities would be an acceptable means of demonstrating proof-of-concept and/or providing validation for design simulations. Note, however, that the proposed design approach must meet the system volume requirement of <61 m3.

In addition to source design, performers shall also develop a predictive SEE testing approach that includes correlation of induced effects with existing heavy-ion data, source characterization, simulations of beam and material interactions, and a testing plan for multiple devices of increasing complexity (to be specified at program kickoff).

Approximately six weeks prior to the end of the Phase 1 period of performance, a review will assess the ASSERT source design and predictive SEE testing approach. Progress towards meeting Phase 1 metrics may be demonstrated by simulations and/or supported by experimental measurements. Key items to be reviewed include the maturity and feasibility of the proposed source design, its likelihood of meeting the Phase 2 metrics within the proposed budget, the Phase 2 fabrication and testing schedule, and risks and risk mitigation. The predictive SEE testing approach shall be presented with sufficient details to support an assessment of its feasibility and risks.

Phase 2 (Option) – The principal objective of Phase 2 is to fabricate and experimentally demonstrate the source concept developed in Phase 1. Success in this Phase will be measured by experimental performance against the metrics summarized in Table I. The Phase 2 experimental source and system do not have to be packaged in a 40-foot shipping container but successful designs shall demonstrate compatibility with the <61 m3 (11.2 m × 2.2 m × 2.3 m) form factor.

In the first half of Phase 2 (i.e., during the months leading up to the Interim Review), performers shall use their predictive approach to interpret the charge track data generated by their source and to provide correlations with heavy-ion data. A list of specific devices will be provided at the program kickoff and references to existing heavy-ion data will be provided. Performers are not expected to have to experimentally generate their own heavy-ion data but are encouraged to use existing data to verify and validate their approach. Initial correlation studies may be simulation-based using ASSERT source design parameters or made in combination with experimental measurements using ASSERT source surrogates as may be found at larger accelerator or synchrotron facilities.

In the second half of Phase 2 (i.e., after the Interim Review), performers shall demonstrate correlation between SEE data generated by the ASSERT source and heavy-ion data according to the Phase 2 metrics described in Table I. The government will specify target devices and provide heavy-ion data (50 MeV-cm2/mg at 0.5 mm range) as Government Furnished Information (GFI) for comparison with ASSERT source-generated data.

There are two correlation metrics included in Table I, one analog and one digital, that aim to be representative of a wide range of possible SEEs. In general, SEEs can be divided into two categories. The first category of SEEs (analog) includes the range of effects with continuous characteristics such as single-event transients (SETs) with different amplitudes and time signatures, or single-event leakage current (SELC) with the jumps in current that can take many different values. The efficacy of using the ASSERT source to emulate this category of effects will be evaluated by the analog correlation metric in Table I, which will be estimated by the quantitative agreement between SETs generated using the ASSERT source and traditional accelerator facilities.

The second category of SEEs (digital) includes the range of events that are binary in nature (i.e., they are either induced or not for a particular experiment). This category includes single-event upsets (SEUs), single-event latchup (SEL), among many others. The efficacy of using the ASSERT source to emulate this category of effects will be evaluated by the digital correlation metric in Table I, which will be estimated by the quantitative agreement between SEE thresholds measured using the ASSERT source and traditional accelerator facilities. The list of devices will be provided at the program kickoff, and the benchmark heavy-ion data to calculate these metrics will be provided as GFI.

Approximately six weeks prior to the end of the Phase 2 period of performance, a review will assess the progress towards meeting Phase 2 metrics and the potential to advance to Phase 3.

Phase 3 (Option) – A key program objective is to develop a predictive SEE testing approach where ASSERT source parameters can be tuned to produce an Equivalent LET that can accurately reproduce the radiation response in a DUT without the need for pre-existing heavy-ion data. In support of this objective, Phase 3 will extend the correlation studies initiated in Phase

2. Phase 3 will culminate in a validation of the predictive SEE testing approach with demonstrations of associated carrier distributions using tuned ASSERT source parameters and comparisons with existing heavy-ion data. The government will specify target devices and provide heavy-ion data (100 MeV-cm2/mg at 5 mm range) as GFI for comparison with ASSERT source-generated data.

To facilitate technology transition, performers shall provide a complete system design package by the end of Phase 3. The system should meet the <61 m3 total volume requirement (i.e., the interior volume of a 40-foot shipping container) described in Section I.B. The design package shall include, but not be limited to, mechanical piece part and assembly drawings; bill of materials; control system schematics and relevant control software; documentation (i.e., operation, maintenance, and safety); and a list of potential vendors and suppliers.

Supplemental testing option: Throughout the program, DARPA will work with transition partners to identify devices and components critical to future space and strategic missions.

Therefore, to help position ASSERT efforts for future transition opportunities, proposals shall include a separately priced option for the testing and analysis of additional devices and components using the proposed ASSERT source. If exercised, this option would be performed concurrent to the Phase 3 period of performance. Proposers should assume devices of varying complexity, e.g., large area diodes, operational amplifiers, memory devices, processors, and complex system-on-a-chip devices. DARPA is not defining specifics as to the scope of the option, so proposers are free to use their judgment to propose the option deemed appropriate to meet the general objective stated above; however, the basis for the parameters, cost, etc., to include the identification of the representative devices utilized to define the proposed option, must be provided as supporting documentation. Proposers further should ensure that the supplemental option is clearly delineated in the Statement of Work and cost proposal. Finally, because this option is supplemental, it will not be evaluated as part of the ASSERT evaluation/selection process.

The ASSERT program metrics and their progression by phase are summarized in Table I.

Table I: ASSERT program metrics

(1) In silicon

(2) At the depth specified by the phase Range metric

(3) Simulation or proof-of-concept experimental data

(4) At device surface

(5) At 5 mm penetration depth

D. Technical Area(s)

The ASSERT program comprises a single Technical Area. Proposals must address the two principal Technical Challenges (TCs) described in Section I.A.

E. Schedule/Milestones

The total period of performance is 54 months, organized into three phases: 18-month Phase 1 (Base); 24-month Phase 2 (Option); and 12-month Phase 3 (Option). A high-level schedule is shown in Fig. 1. A mandatory program kickoff meeting will be held to present the technical approaches, discuss technical and programmatic items of concern, and interact with the government team and other program performers.

Regular technical and financial reporting is required by all performers.

For planning and budgeting purposes, a target start of February 2024 may be assumed.

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

Attendance at a program kickoff meeting to be held in the Washington, D.C. area.

Metric Units Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Range(1) mm 5(3) 0.5 5 Maximum Equivalent LET(2) MeV-cm2/mg 100(3) 50 100 Minimum Equivalent LET(2) MeV-cm2/mg 0.1(3) 1 0.1 Spot diameter m < 1(3) < 1(4) < 0.2(5)

Analog correlation accuracy % -- 80 95 Digital correlation accuracy % -- 70 90

Proposals should budget for four two-day technical meetings to be attended in-person9 over the course of the 54-month period of performance:

o Phase 1: One meeting in the Washington, D.C. area (in addition to the program kickoff meeting) o Phase 2: One meeting in the Los Angeles, CA area and one meeting in the Washington, D.C. area o Phase 3: One meeting in the Los Angeles, CA area

Proposers should anticipate at least one site visit per phase by the DARPA Program Manager along with other members of the government team, during which they will have the opportunity to demonstrate progress towards agreed-upon milestones.

Budgeting to attend and present results at appropriate technical conferences is acceptable (one per 12-month period, at conferences consistent with the information being disseminated); beyond this level, attendance will require substantial justification.

The following program milestones are applicable to Phase 1:

A Program Kickoff meeting to be held within one month of the program start.

An Interim Review to be held approximately 12 months after program start. The Interim Review will take the place of a quarterly program review (QPR).

Demonstration of all Phase 1 technical metrics approximately six weeks prior to the end of the period of performance.

Delivery of Phase 1 designs, simulation results, and test data (if applicable) for IV&V at least six weeks prior to the end of the Phase 1 period of performance.

The following program milestones are applicable to Phase 2:

A kickoff meeting to be held at the start of Phase 2.

A Design Review of the Phase 2 source and system including a detailed analysis of components and sub-systems, materials, structures, fabrication methods, testing, and schedule. The Design Review shall take place within three months of the Phase 2 start, coinciding with the first QPR.

9 Depending on the circumstances, virtual meetings may replace in-person gatherings.

An Interim Review to be held approximately 12 months after Phase 2 start. The Interim Review will take the place of a QPR.

Demonstration of all Phase 2 technical metrics at least six weeks prior to the end of the period of performance.

Delivery of Phase 2 designs, simulation results, and test data for IV&V at least six weeks prior to the end of the Phase 2 period of performance.

The following program milestones are applicable to Phase 3:

A kickoff meeting to be held at the start of Phase 3.

Demonstration of all Phase 3 technical metrics at least six weeks prior to the end of the period of performance.

Delivery of Phase 3 designs, validation of the predictive SEE testing approach, simulation results, and test data for IV&V at least six weeks prior to the end of the Phase 3 period of performance.

Delivery of a final design package to include, but not be limited to, mechanical piece part and assembly drawings; bill of materials; control system schematics and relevant control software; documentation (i.e., operation, maintenance, and safety); and a list of potential vendors and suppliers at least six weeks prior to the end of the Phase 3 period of performance.

F. Deliverables

Technical progress towards the goals of the program represents the major deciding factor for funding decisions for the subsequent phase, and will be monitored through monthly technical updates, QPRs, interim reviews, design reviews, and occasional site visits by the DARPA Program Manager along with other members of the government team. In addition, all performers shall participate in and support program-wide reviews scheduled at the Program Manager’s discretion. All performers should be prepared to respond to off-schedule delivery of technical updates and summary slides at the DARPA Program Manager’s request. Table II is a summary of the program deliverables by phase.

All performers shall deliver the following:

Detailed spending plans (or detailed program plans for fixed-price award instruments) at program kickoff and upon the execution of subsequent option awards.

Monthly financial reports, due within ten business days of the end of each month, including updated commitments and expenditures.

Brief monthly technical updates in either written or slide presentation format to include:

o A summary of the previous month’s progress.

o Notable achievements.

o Areas of technical and/or programmatic concern.

Quarterly technical status reporting (both slide presentations and written reports). Slide presentations shall be provided to the government team prior to the QPR and written reports shall be due within ten business days of the end of the given quarter. Reporting shall include:

o Details of technical work to-date.

o Charts and explanations of how well the system meets, exceeds, or falls short of specified program goals (as described in this BAA).

o Technical and/or programmatic concerns.

o Risk assessment and risk mitigation strategies.

o Plans for the next quarter’s work.

Deliverables associated with particular Phases:

Phase 1 Interim Review reporting o Takes the place of a QPR.

o In addition to addressing information normally covered at a QPR, the Phase 1

Interim Review report shall present a forward-looking plan and schedule that supports the feasibility of meeting the technical metrics by the end of Phase 1.

o Slide presentations shall be provided to the government team prior to the Review and written reports shall be due within ten business days of the review date.

End-of-Phase 1 Review reporting (see below for details)

Phase 1 Completion Report (see below for details)

Phase 2 Design Review reporting o Takes the place of a QPR.

o In addition to addressing information normally covered at a QPR, the Phase 2

Design Review shall present comprehensive fabrication plan, testing approach, and schedule.

o Slide presentations shall be provided to the government team prior to the Review and written reports shall be due within ten business days of the review date.

Phase 2 Interim Review reporting o Takes the place of a QPR.

o In addition to addressing information normally covered at a QPR, the Phase 2

Interim Review report shall present a forward-looking plan and schedule that supports the feasibility of meeting the technical metrics by the end of Phase 2.

o Slide presentations shall be provided to the government team prior to the Review and written reports shall be due within ten business days of the review date.

End-of-Phase 2 Review reporting – details provided below

Phase 2 Completion Report – details provided below

Phase 3 Final Design package to include, but not be limited to, mechanical piece part and assembly drawings; bill of materials; control system schematics and relevant control software; documentation (i.e., operation, maintenance, and safety); and a list of potential vendors and suppliers.

Final Technical report due at the conclusion of the performer’s program effort (i.e., at contract end)

End-of-phase Review meetings will be scheduled approximately six weeks before the end of each phase’s period of performance. The end of each phase represents a major technical milestone in the program and the review meetings will be used to communicate the technical progress made, particularly with respect to the metrics, during the entire phase. Slide presentations shall be provided to the government team in advance of the End-of-phase Review meeting. End-of-phase Review deliverables include:

Charts documenting key findings and explanations of how well the work meets, exceeds, or falls short of specified program goals (as described in this BAA).

Designs, simulation results, experimental demonstrations and test data (if applicable) for

IV&V.

Reporting on the predictive SEE testing approach with supporting simulations and experimental measurements, as appropriate.

Plans, projections, and schedule for the next program phase with an updated risk assessment in each of the critical program areas and material that supports the feasibility of meeting the next phase’s objectives.

Phase Completion Reports take the place of the phase’s final quarterly technical status report and shall be delivered within ten business days of the end of the phase. The written report shall include:

A description of the technical development and achievements in the areas of the ASSERT source and predictive SEE testing approach.

Charts and explanations of how well the system meets, exceeds, or falls short of specified program goals (as described in this BAA).

Results of simulations and experimental measurements.

Insights into technical challenges and risk mitigation activities.

Plans, projections, and schedule for the next program phase with an updated risk assessment in each of the critical program areas and material that supports the feasibility of meeting the next phase’s objectives.

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.

At the conclusion of the effort, a Final Technical Report replaces the Phase Completion Report/final quarterly technical report and is due no later than end of period of performance.

Table II: Deliverables by Phase Phase 1 (18 months) Phase 2 (24 months) Phase 3 (12 months)

Program Kickoff: Detailed spending plan (or detailed program plan for fixed-price award instruments).

Monthly financial reports:

Due within ten business days of the end of each month.

Monthly updates: Brief technical updates in either written or slide presentation format.

Quarterly technical status reports: Slide presentations provided to the government prior to the QPR; written

Phase 2 Kickoff: Detailed spending plan (or detailed program plan for fixed-price award instruments).

Monthly financial reports:

Due within ten business days of the end of each month.

Monthly updates: Brief technical updates in either written or slide presentation format.

Quarterly technical status reports: Slide presentations provided to the government prior to the QPR; written

Phase 3 Kickoff: Detailed spending plan (or detailed program plan for fixed-price award instruments).

Monthly financial reports:

Due within ten business days of the end of each month.

Monthly updates: Brief technical updates in either written or slide presentation format.

Quarterly technical status reports: Slide presentations provided to the government prior to the QPR; written reports due within ten business days of end of the given quarter.

Interim Review reporting:

Held approximately 12 months after program start, taking the place of a QPR.

The report shall include a forward-looking plan and schedule that supports the feasibility of meeting the technical metrics by the end of Phase 1. Slide presentations shall be provided to the government prior to the Review; written reports shall be provided within ten business days of end of the given quarter.

End-of-Phase reporting:

Held approximately six weeks before the end of the Phase 1 period of performance. Slides and relevant materials for IV&V review shall be provided to the government team in advance of the Review.

Phase Completion Report:

The written Report takes the place of the phase’s final quarterly technical status report and shall be delivered within ten business days of the end of Phase 1.

reports due within ten business days of end of the given quarter.

Design Review: Held within three months of the Phase 2 start, coinciding with the first QPR. Performers shall present a comprehensive fabrication plan, testing approach, and schedule.

Slide presentations shall be provided to the government team prior to the Design Review and written reports shall be provided with then business days of the Review.

Interim Review reporting:

Held approximately 12 months after Phase 2 start, taking the place of a QPR.

The report shall include a forward-looking plan and schedule that supports the feasibility of meeting the technical metrics by the end of Phase 2. Slide presentations shall be provided to the government prior to the Review; written reports shall be provided within ten business days of end of the given quarter.

End-of-Phase reporting:

Held approximately six weeks before the end of the Phase 2 period of performance. Slides and relevant materials for IV&V review shall be provided to the government team in advance of the Review.

Phase Completion Report:

The written Report takes the place of the phase’s final quarterly technical status report and shall be delivered within ten business days of the end of Phase 2.

reports due within ten business days of end of the given quarter.

Final Design Package delivered at the end of the program, to include, but not be limited to, mechanical piece part and assembly drawings; bill of materials;

control system schematics and relevant control software; documentation (i.e., operation, maintenance, and safety);

and a list of potential vendors and suppliers

Final Technical Report: The written Report takes the place of the phase’s final quarterly technical status report and shall be delivered within ten business days of the end of the contract.

G. Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information

At the start of the program, the government will specify target devices and will provide heavy-ion data as GFI for comparison with ASSERT source-generated data. Information will be provided, as appropriate, during the relevant phases of the program.

H. Intellectual Property

Proposers shall identify in their proposal any pre-existing technical data or commercial/non-commercial software that they will deliver to the Government with less than unlimited rights.

See Section IV.B.10. for more information related to intellectual property.

It is desired that all non-commercial software (including source code), software documentation, hardware designs and documentation, and technical data generated by the program be provided as deliverables to the 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

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

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

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.3., “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, and the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional information. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

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

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

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

B. Fundamental Research

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.