HR001124S0010.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement BioLogical Undersea Energy (BLUE)

BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE

HR001124S0010

February 14, 2024

HR001124S0010, BLUE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

1. Funding Opportunity Description

1.1. Program Overview

1.2. Program Objective

1.3. Technical Proposal Guidance

1.4. Program Structure

1.5. Government Team Activity

1.6. Phase I (Base, Months 1-21)

1.7. Phase II (priced Option, Months 22-30)

1.8. Program Metrics

1.9. General Requirements

2. Award Information

2.1. General Award Information

2.2. DARPA FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH RISK-BASED SECURITY REVIEW

PROCESS

3. Eligibility Information

3.1. Eligible Applicants

3.2. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

3.3. Cost Sharing/Matching

4. Application and Submission Information

4.1. Address to Request Application Package

4.2. Content and Form of Application Submission

4.3. Funding Restrictions

4.4. Other Submission Information

5. Application Review Information

5.1. Evaluation Criteria

5.2. Review of Proposals

6. Award Administration Information

6.1. Submission Status Notifications

6.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

6.3. Reporting

6.4. Electronic Systems

6.5. DARPA Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative

7. Agency Contacts

8. Other Information

8.1. Proposers Day

8.2. University Funding

9. APPENDIX 1 – Volume II checklist

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Biological Technologies Office (BTO)

Funding Opportunity Title – BioLogical Undersea Energy (BLUE) Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001124S0010 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) – 541714 Assistance Listing Number (ALN) – 12.910 Research and Technology

Development Dates o Posting Date: February 14, 2024 o Proposal Abstract Due Date and Time: March 14, 2024, 4:00 PM ET o Full Proposal Due Date and Time: April 30, 2024, 4:00 PM ET o BAA Closing Date: April 30, 2024 o Proposers Day: February 29, 2024 https://sam.gov/opp/40fadb038da34595b50e7d8f8a3ed4bc/view

Concise description of the funding opportunity – The BioLogical Undersea Energy (BLUE) program seeks to develop power supplies that capture and convert microscopic forms of marine biomass (e.g., dissolved organic matter, phytoplankton, zooplankton) or other substances (e.g., microplastics) into electrical power. These power supplies are intended for onboard use by ocean-deployed sensor systems presently powered by batteries. They are to self-refuel on marine biomass, operate fully submerged, and deliver battery-level power without being serviced far longer than is possible by comparably sized battery packs. BLUE power supplies will enable high capability and long endurance ocean-deployed sensor systems.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract, cooperative agreement, other transaction for research, or other transaction for prototypes.

Agency contact o Technical POC: Leonard M. Tender, Ph.D., Program Manager, DARPA/BTO o Contracting Officer: Ms. Belinda Nwanguma, DARPA/CMO o E-Mail: BLUE@darpa.mil o Mailing Address:

DARPA/BTO

ATTN: HR001124S0010

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 https://sam.gov/opp/40fadb038da34595b50e7d8f8a3ed4bc/view mailto:BLUE@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

1. Funding Opportunity Description

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

The Biological Technologies Office (BTO) of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals to develop power supplies that capture and convert microscopic forms of marine biomass, such as dissolved organic matter, phytoplankton, bacteria, and microscopic zooplankton into electrical power. The goal of this program is to develop self-refueling power supplies that enable remote, ocean-deployed, sensor systems including seabed-mounted sensor and profiling systems to operate far longer than possible by comparably sized battery packs. Upon completion, BLUE will demonstrate a novel, persistent, sustainable, low environmental impact power supply that provides ultralong endurance and high payload capacity to remote, ocean-deployed sensor systems.

Approaches that utilize macroscopic forms of biomass (greater than 1-mm cross section) will be considered non-conforming and rejected without further review.

1.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The BLUE program seeks to develop technologies to continuously provide electrical power that will expand the capabilities of remote, ocean-deployed sensor systems. Such systems hold great potential for national security, understanding dynamics of marine environments, and monitoring marine climate change. Owing to convenience, reliability, and cost, the vast majority of these systems are powered by batteries. Space constraints and finite energy densities of batteries, however, limit the amount of energy these systems can carry on board. Due to these limitations, remote, ocean-deployed sensor systems must be serviced to recharge or replace depleted batteries, which is expensive, logistically demanding, and places personnel and platforms at risk.

While endurance can be extended by reducing power consumption, active, high duty cycle sensors, data processing, and communications require significant electrical power, and compromising on any one of these capabilities diminishes operational value. Developing an oceanographic power supply that can sustain at least 0.1 kW average continuous power for over a year while remaining fully submerged, not needing to be serviced, fitting within a ≤180 L, ≤200 kg form factor, and that self-refuels on marine biomass will enable significantly enhanced operational capabilities.

Currently, batteries are the most deployable technology, but they are not increasing in energy density fast enough to achieve the desired level of performance in the foreseeable future.

Alternative options, such as aluminum, diesel, and hydrogen also cannot achieve the energy density needed to meet BLUE specifications. While solar energy can enable systems to operate for more than a year, their power density is also too low to support highly capable payloads. As such, nearly all ocean-deployed sensor systems are designed and operated within the constraints of battery-limited energy budgets resulting in limited capabilities and/or endurance.

If successful, BLUE technologies will offer transformative and significant improvements over state-of-the-art batteries and other types of power supplies by enabling both high capability and long endurance for remote, ocean-deployed sensor systems. BLUE technologies will:

self-refuel on input materials readily available in many marine environments;

prevent capture of macroscopic living marine organisms;

operate when fully submerged;

be durable, reliable, deployable;

operate in diverse locations;

operate independently with consistent electrical power production and without being serviced, extrapolated out to at least one year; and have negligible ecological and environmental impact.

1.2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

During the program, efforts will focus on the following objectives:

1.2.1. Identify and select targeted input materials. Each performer team will identify and select targeted input materials, such as microscopic forms of marine biomass (e.g., dissolved organic matter, phytoplankton, zooplankton) to be used as input materials to convert to electrical power. The form(s) of input materials must be sufficiently abundant in many locations to achieve end-of-phase performance milestones (see Table 1) and captured and utilized with negligible ecological and environmental impact. Locations meeting these criteria must be reliably predictable from existing data sets such as satellite imaging, in situ detection methods, or relevant published sources. Approaches that utilize macroscopic forms of biomass greater than 1-mm cross section will be considered non-conforming and rejected without further review.

1.2.2. Identify key environmental features. Each performer team will also determine key environmental features affecting capture and conversion of their input materials to electrical power including, but not limited to, water current, oxygen concentration, salinity, and temperature. The set of key environmental features enabling power generation must exist in many locations that are reliably predictable from readily available data sets, including satellite imaging, in situ detection methods, or relevant published sources.

1.2.3. Develop a laboratory test bed and field site. Each performer team will develop a laboratory test bed that enables efficient laboratory-based experimentation. Each team will also develop a field site that enables efficient design-build-test iterations of brassboard systems (experimental systems for testing outside the laboratory environment) to convert input materials to electrical power (see section 1.2.4). This field site must be readily accessible, within United States territorial waters (within 12 nautical miles of the United States coastline), between 1- and 100-m depth, have an average water current not exceeding 0.5 m/s, and enable real-time monitoring of power output by the brassboard systems. This field site is also to be used for the end-of-phase technology field demonstrations conducted by the performer team (see Sections 1.6 and 1.7). It is the responsibility of the performer team to ensure all relevant local and federal regulations are followed including obtaining necessary permits for all performer-led demonstrations.

1.2.4. Self-capture and convert input materials to electrical power. Each performer team will develop and deliver two separate brassboard systems that self-capture and convert the selected input materials to electrical power while fully submerged without user intervention. One brassboard system is to be developed and delivered during Phase I and the other during Phase II.

These brassboard systems may rely upon microorganisms, enzymes, or other biologically derived materials. These systems may utilize the current of surrounding water (e.g., for input material capture and for system mass transport) but operate in environments with average water currents as low as 0.5 m/s. If these systems require environmental conditions to operate such as a range in water temperature, water salinity, water oxygen or sulphate content, these conditions must exist in many locations to meet the end-of-phase performance metrics described in Table 1.

Systems may utilize consumables (e.g., enzymes, buffers) as long as the system can be expected to sustain the end phase power metric for one year without needing service or resupply and without exceeding the end-of-phase volume and mass metrics.

The first brassboard system, to be developed during Phase I, will be assessed against the Phase I metrics (see Table 1) during an end-of-phase, performer-conducted, 30-day technology field demonstration (see Section 1.6). This demonstration is to be conducted by the performer team at the performer field site (see Section 1.2.3). Following completion of the demonstration, the system will be delivered to a Government provided team for independent evaluation in which the system will be deployed and operated at a different location within United States territorial waters (within 12 nautical miles of the United States coastline) at between 1- and 100-m depth.

The intention of this evaluation is for the DARPA BLUE program team to independently obtain and evaluate performance related data including power generation, compliance with environmental/ecological/biosafety design regulations, compliance with transition partner requirements, and risk identification and possible mitigation. It is expected that the performer team engage regularly with the Government team prior to delivery of the brassboard system to ensure readiness of the brassboard system for the external evaluation as well as to inform the Government team in their development of the evaluation process including selection of a site that takes into account the type of input materials and key environmental parameters (see Section 1.5.4).

The second brassboard system, to be developed during Phase II, will be assessed against the Phase II metrics (see Table 1) during an end-of-phase, performer-conducted, 30-day field demonstration (see Section 1.7). The Phase II system is to be delivered to a Government team for independent evaluation in the manner described above for Phase I.

1.2.5. Achieve endurance. Although each end-of-phase field technology demonstration is to last 30 days, each performer team is to develop strategies to enable their brassboard systems sustain power production for one year of continuous operation in a real marine environment. Successful demonstration of these strategies will be assessed by extrapolation of any observed decay in power generation, degradation in system integrity due to operation in the marine environment, and rate of utilization of any consumable materials observed during the end-of-phase field technology demonstrations. Such strategies may include, but are not limited to, development of novel embedded bacterial factories, slow-release reagents (e.g., enzymes, buffer), sensors, actuators, biocontainment strategies, and automated feedback control.

1.2.6. Incorporate ocean engineering. Unlike batteries, which must be housed in oceanographic enclosures to isolate them from the marine environment, BLUE power supplies must directly interface with the marine environment where corrosion and fouling of internal components and other issues must be addressed. It is therefore recognized that successful BLUE efforts will require incorporation of rigorous ocean engineering from ideation through execution. This will be necessary to ensure that BLUE power supplies successfully complete end phase, 30-day technology field demonstrations that project out to one year of continuous operation without being serviced in real marine environments at up to 100-meter depth.

1.2.7. Satisfy biosafety design requirements. Each performer team will: 1) devise robust containment and deactivation methods that leave no traceable signature in the operational environment; 2) provide samples of any nonnative biological materials used for conversion of input materials to a Government provided team who will assess the containment and deactivation methods; 3) ensure compliance with all relevant standards and regulation; and 4) secure all required approvals and permits.

1.2.8. Satisfy ecological and environmental requirements. Each performer team will complete an ecological and environmental analysis to be assessed by a Government provided team to include the type of input materials; methods of capture and conversion; test bed and field site used for developmental testing and field demonstrations; and any non-native, biologically-derived materials to be used. This analysis is to be completed in Phase I and revised at the discretion of the Program Manager in Phase II.

1.2.9 Address Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications (ELSI). Each performer team will engage with a selected group of experts to identify, discuss, and address the potential ELSI of their technical plan that are not otherwise addressed in the BAA.

1.3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL GUIDANCE

To craft a successful proposal for the BLUE solicitation, offerors are suggested to present technical evidence (e.g., relevant preliminary data) when addressing the program objectives (1.2.1 – 1.2.9 above) against the following guidance:

1.3.1. Proposals must detail the team’s relevant experience, demonstrate a deep understanding of the many challenges associated with achieving the program objectives, and present a credible plan to achieve the program objectives which may require multiple technical breakthroughs.

1.3.2. Proposals must include calculations or modeling based on relevant literature or data including, for example, concentrations and fluxes of input materials at example locations and a method of conversion (e.g., enzyme kinetics) that substantiates that their targeted form(s) of input materials can be used to sustain the end-of-phase program metrics (Table 1).

1.3.3. Proposals must include a process block diagram that provides a detailed description of the proposed process as well as reasonable estimates of rates, efficiencies, and yields for each step.

For any steps that require power, these requirements must be clearly substantiated and subtracted from the gross power output yielding the target net power output required in the program metrics (Table 1).

1.4. PROGRAM STRUCTURE

The BLUE program is structured as a 30-month effort consisting of two Phases: 21-month Phase I (Base) and 9-month Phase II (Option I). Phases I and II are the focus of this BAA, with program milestones for each listed in Table 1. The Government reserves the right to execute all, some, one, or none of the optional Phase II awards. A potential Phase III expansion may be pursued separately and at a later date for further research, development, and system integration.

Environmental and Ecological Impact Analysis

Program Kick -off

Performer Tasks

Biosafety Design Analysis

Phase I Design Review

Phase II Design Review

Key Performer Milestones 19 months:

Tech Field Demonstration 28 months:

Tech Field Demonstration

Tech Handoff to Govt Team

Tech Handoff to Govt Team

By 30 months:

10 -fold Power increase

By 9 months:

Device modeling and design

By 21 months:

Complete System (Biomass → Electrical Power)

Q10Q9Q8Q7Q6Q5Q4Q3Q2Q1

Phase I (21 months) Feasibility of producing ≥0.01 kW

Phase II (9 months) Scale up to ≥0.1 kW

Figure 1. BLUE Program Performer Schedule

1.5. GOVERNMENT TEAM ACTIVITY

Each performer team will engage regularly with Government provided teams possessing relevant expertise in support of the DARPA BLUE program. The purpose of these engagements is to mitigate specific risks inherent to the DARPA BLUE program and maximize the opportunity for each performer team to thoroughly test the hypotheses underlying their proposed technical approach. Each performer team will engage the Government provided teams in performing tasks pursuant to meeting program metrics, milestones, deliverables, and evaluations, and descriptions of these engagements are to be included in the performer team’s monthly status reports (MSRs, see Section 1.6). Each performer team is to have a designated point of contact for engagement with the supporting Government teams performing the following roles:

1.5.1. Assessment of the ocean engineering rigor of the performer’s technical approach and its execution. This is to ensure that brassboard systems are designed and built for the realities of operating in marine environments. While selectable proposals must demonstrate a high-level of ocean engineering rigor (see Section 1.2.6), at the discretion of the Program Manager, a Government team may advise performer teams and/or provide additional ocean engineering support to augment performer teams’ technical plans.

1.5.2. Assessment of ecological and environmental impact analysis and compliance with relevant standards and regulations. Selectable proposals must demonstrate a high-level understanding of and compliance with relevant ecological and environmental standards and regulations (see Section 1.2.8). At the discretion of the Program Manager, a Government provided team may advise performer teams in ecological and environmental aspects of their technical plans.

1.5.3. Assessment of biosafety design compliance with relevant standards and regulations.

Selectable proposals must demonstrate a high-level understanding of and compliance with biosafety standards and regulations (see Section 1.2.7). At the discretion of the Program Manager, a Government provided team may advise performer teams to ensure they meet biosafety standards and regulations.

1.5.4. Assessment of brassboard readiness in preparation for independent evaluation by a supporting Government team. At the discretion of the Program Manager, a Government provided team may advise performer teams to maximize readiness of brassboard systems for independent evaluation by the supporting Government team (see Section 1.2.4).

1.5.3. Assessment of ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). This is to assess and manage ethical, legal and social implications of the performers technical approach (See Section 1.2.9).

1.6. PHASE I (BASE, MONTHS 1-21)

Phase I will focus on establishing the feasibility of the proposed methods for self-capture of input materials and conversion of input materials to electrical power while remaining fully submerged. The culmination of Phase I will be a performer-conducted 30-day long technology field demonstration of a brassboard system that meets the Phase I metrics (Table 1) to be conducted at the performer field site (see Section 1.2.3). Ability of the system to meet the Phase I metrics will project out to 1 year of operation based on extrapolation of any decay in power generation, any degradation in system integrity due to operation in the marine environment, and on rate of utilization of any consumable materials that occur during the demonstration. Following the demonstration, the brassboard system will be delivered to a supporting Government team for subsequent deployment and evaluation (see Section 1.2.4).

Phase I (Base) Milestones and Associated Deliverables where indicated:

Month 1: In-Person, Phase I Kickoff Meeting. To be attended by all key members of the performer team and include a presentation (deliverable) of the technical approach (location and date TBD; use Oct 15, 2024, and Arlington, VA USA for cost determination).

Month 3: Ecological and Environmental Impact Analysis. Submission of a written report (deliverable) detailing a thorough analysis of potential ecological and environmental impacts of the proposed technical approach and plan of action to meet ecological and environmental standards and regulations as well as acquire necessary permits. This report is to be assessed by a supporting Government team. This analysis must include, but is not limited to, the proposed technical approach to achieving the Phase II metrics (see Table 1);

the type of input materials; methods of capture and conversion; test bed and field site used used for developmental testing and field demonstrations; and any non-native, biologically derived materials to be used. It is also to include a comparison to a state-of-the-art device: a 1000-kg mass, 2-cubic meter volume, seabed-mounted sensor system deployed at 100-m depth in United States territorial waters (within 12 nautical miles of the United States coastline) and equipped with a conventional battery pack that depletes in 3 months and must be serviced 3 times in order to achieve 1 year of operation.

Month 9: Phase I Design Review. Host DARPA team site visit, to include presentation of engineering drawings (deliverable) for first iteration brassboard system designed to meet Phase I performance metrics (Table 1).

Month 10: Mid-Phase Technical Interchange Meeting. To be attended by key members of each performer team and include a presentation (deliverable) of results and progress.

(Location TBD; use Arlington, VA USA for cost determination.)

Month 15: Biosafety Design Analysis. Submission of a written report (deliverable) and demonstration (deliverable) of methods of containment and deactivation strategies for any non-native biological materials to be assessed by a supporting Government team. A successful biocontainment approach should leave no traceable signature in the operational environment and meet biosafety design standards and regulations.

Month 16-21: Host a site visit by DARPA and supporting Government teams.

Month 19: Technology Field Demonstration. Completion of a 30-day long technology field demonstration of the brassboard system operating at the performer field site that meets the Phase I metrics (see Table 1). A successful demonstration system must self-capture and convert input materials to electrical power while fully submerged without being serviced or resupplied. Performance of the brassboard system should demonstrate sustained operation with only negligible deterioration in power output due to depletion of any consumables, fouling, clogging, or other relevant challenges of the operational environment. Successful operation should project out to at least one year of continuous operation in which Phase I performance metrics are sustained.

Month 19: Design Lock. Design lock in the form of revised engineered drawings (deliverable) of the brassboard system after completion of the 30-day long technology field demonstration.

Month 20: Technology Handoff. Transfer of the brassboard system (deliverable) to a supporting Government team for subsequent evaluation (see Section 1.2.4).

Month 21: End-of-Phase Report. Submission of an end-of-phase report (deliverable) summarizing technical progress against all tasks and metrics, technical challenges, and lessons learned. This report should act as a comprehensive, standalone record of the Phase I effort and include detailed descriptions of technical accomplishments, failures, next steps, and lessons learned.

Month 21: End-of-Phase Technical Interchange Meeting. To be attended by key members of each performer team and include a presentation (deliverable) of results and progress. (Location TBD; use Arlington, VA for cost determination.)

Monthly: Monthly Status Reports (MSRs). Technical and financial MSRs in the form of slides (deliverables) submitted and presented to the DARPA BLUE program team and supporting Government teams via monthly online meetings. MSRs are to conform to a template provided by the DARPA BLUE program team. It is expected that the principal investor (PI) conducts MSRs, with the PI, key personnel, and/or other personnel (e.g., trainees) presenting on the different technical sections, and that all performer team members attend. It is expected that the PI and/or the performer team administrative/financial manager present on the financial section. A schedule for MSR meetings will be established at the program kickoff meeting and will include prior submission of the MSR slides for read ahead by the DARPA BLUE program team and supporting Government teams.

Selectable proposals must specifically and separately identify tasks proposed to achieve Phase I performance metrics in the Statement of Work (SOW) and the cost proposal documents. Assessment of the performance of Phase I brassboard systems against Phase I metrics (see Table 1) will inform whether performers progress to Phase II of the program (i.e., from Base to Option). The Government reserves the right to select for Phase II award all, some, one, or none of the Phase I performers.

1.7. PHASE II (PRICED OPTION, MONTHS 22-30)

Efforts will focus on development of a second brassboard system that meets Phase II metrics (Table I) based on scale up of the Phase I brassboard system. The culmination of Phase II will be a performer-conducted 30-day long technology field demonstration of a brassboard system that meets the Phase II metrics (Table 1) at the performer field site (see Section 1.2.3). Ability of the system to meet the Phase II metrics will project out to 1 year based on extrapolation of any decay in power generation, degradation in system integrity due to operation in the marine environment, and on rate of utilization of any consumable materials that occur during the demonstration.

Following the demonstration, the brassboard system will be delivered to a supporting Government team for subsequent deployment and evaluation (see Section 1.2.4).

Phase II (Option) Milestones and Associated Deliverables where indicated:

Month 22: In-Person, Phase II Kickoff Meeting. To be attended by all key members of the performer team to include a presentation (deliverable) of the technical approach (Location and date TBD; use Arlington, VA USA for cost determination).

Month 24: Phase II Design Review. Presentation of engineered drawings (deliverable) for first iteration brassboard system designed to meet Phase II performance metrics (Table 1).

Month 26-30: Host a site visit by DARPA and supporting Government teams.

Month 28: Technology Field Demonstration. Completion of a 30-day long technology field demonstration of the Phase II brassboard system operating in a real marine environment that meets the Phase II metrics (Table 1). A successful demonstration system must self-capture and convert input materials to electrical power while fully submerged without being serviced or resupplied. Performance of the brassboard system should demonstrate sustained operation with only negligible deterioration in power output due to depletion of any consumables, fouling, clogging, or other relevant challenges of the operational environment. Successful operation should be projected out to at least one year of continuous operation in which Phase II performance metrics are achieved.

Month 28: Design Lock. Design lock in the form of revised engineered drawings (deliverable) of the brassboard system after completion of the 30-day long technology field demonstration.

Month 28: Technology Handoff. Transfer of the brassboard system (deliverable) to a supporting Government team for subsequent evaluation (see Section 1.2.4).

Month 30: End-of-Phase Report. Submit an end-of-phase report summarizing technical progress against all tasks and metrics, technical challenges, and lessons learned. This report should act as a comprehensive, standalone record of the Phase II effort and include detailed descriptions of technical accomplishments and failures.

Month 30: End of-Phase Technical Interchange Meeting. To be attended by key members of each performer team and include a presentation (deliverable) of results and progress. (Location TBD; use Arlington, VA for cost determination.)

Monthly: MSRs. Technical and financial MSRs in the form of slides (deliverables) submitted and presented to the DARPA BLUE program team and supporting Government provided teams via monthly online meetings (see Section 1.6). A schedule for MSR meetings will be established at the Phase II kickoff meeting.

Selectable proposals must specifically and separately identify tasks proposed to achieve Phase II performance metrics in the SOW and the cost proposal documents.

1.8. PROGRAM METRICS

For the Government to evaluate how effectively a proposed solution will achieve the stated program objectives, the Government hereby promulgates the following program metrics that will serve as the basis for determination of satisfactory progress to warrant continued funding.

Although the desired program metrics are specified (Table 1), proposers should note that the Government has identified these goals with the intention of bounding the scope of effort while affording the maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation to proposed solutions to the stated problem. Proposals should cite the quantitative and qualitative success criteria that the effort will achieve by each Phase’s program milestone and intermediary metric measurement. The criteria put forward by proposers should outline the metrics that their strategy will attain, not simply reflect the aspirational objectives set forward below.

Progress towards the goals of the BLUE program will be determined through the evaluation of minimally required metrics (Table 1) and milestones and deliverables specified above (Sections

1.6 and 1.7). Proposals must address all metrics below as well as define additional quantitative and qualitative success criteria, as needed. Proposers must clearly itemize tasks needed to accomplish planned milestones and deliverables in the SOW, including ocean engineering tasks.

Tests and demonstrations will be subject to the phase-level metrics below and will be evaluated by the Government at the end of each phase.

Table 1. BLUE End-of-Phase Program Metrics1

Phase I Phase II Average Net Continuous Power Output2 ≥0.01 kW ≥0.1 kW Volume ≤45 L ≤180 L Mass ≤50 kg ≤200 kg Duration ≥30 d ≥30 d Depth3 1-100 m 1-100 m Brassboard lifetime extrapolation4 1 year 1 year

1. Achieved by brassboard systems during performer-conducted, end-of-phase technology field demonstrations operating fully submerged that self-capture and convert input materials to electrical power without user intervention.

2. Raw power output (e.g., 0.6 V DC), does not need to be conditioned.

3. While field demonstrations can be performed at between 1- and 100-m depth, brassboard systems must be able to operate at up to 100-m depth for subsequent deployment and evaluation a supporting Government team.

4. Based on extrapolation of any decay in power generation, degradation in system integrity due to operation in the marine environment, and rate of utilization of any consumable materials.

1.9. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposing Teams It is expected that proposals will involve teams that include expertise from multiple complementary disciplines (e.g., ocean engineering, marine ecology, hydrodynamics, electrochemistry, molecular biology, synthetic biology, biochemistry, and bio production). It is also expected that teams include an administrative and/or financial manager. Specific content, communications, networking, and team formation are the sole responsibility of the proposer teams. Proposer teams must submit a single, integrated proposal led by a single program integrator/manager or prime contractor that addresses all program phases as applicable.

Data Sharing The BLUE program will require that performer data, analysis, and software executables (or source code) be shared with DARPA, the Government teams, and U.S. Government stakeholders. Performers are strongly encouraged to establish the appropriate agreements to enable collaboration and data sharing beyond these organizations. DARPA encourages sharing of pre-existing data, including those generated through funding from other sources, although this is not a requirement of the program.

Biocontainment / Biosafety If proposing to use non-native biological materials including engineered microorganisms, performers must: 1) develop robust biocontainment or deactivation strategies, which will be independently assessed and verified to conform to all applicable regulations by a Government provided team; and 2) engage with and receive approval from any authority with jurisdiction over locations where the technology is developed and tested by the performers.

Permits and Compliance It is the proposing team’s responsibility to obtain all necessary federal, state, and local government permits and approvals, and abide by all applicable laws where necessary for the proposed work to be conducted. Proposing teams are expected to design their proposals so that they minimize the potential adverse impact on the environment.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Activities Proposers are expected to engage with relevant regulatory bodies to identify and mitigate challenges to the transition of resulting technology and in anticipation of future deployment. The proposers should plan to support ELSI engagement activities with DARPA, potentially including semi-annual teleconference calls with the BLUE Program ELSI Group and consideration of feedback from the group regarding research activities. ELSI activity outcomes will be reported regularly to DARPA.

Other Requirements Performers are expected to attend Technical Interchange Meetings to provide scientific and technical updates to the other performers on the BLUE program. These presentations will include progress towards the milestones and scientific goals and a summary of outstanding challenges and limitations that must still be overcome to achieve the overarching goals of the program.

Technical Interchange Meetings will include relevant Government stakeholders and may be held at the kick-off of each phase, as well as mid-phase or end-of-phase for the program duration (see Sections 1.6 and 1.7).

2. Award Information

2.1. GENERAL AWARD INFORMATION

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

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, 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.2., “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

2.2. DARPA FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH RISK-BASED SECURITY REVIEW

PROCESS

This process was formerly known as the Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP).

Senior/Key Personnel proposed under all grants and cooperative agreements are subject to the http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions

DARPA Fundamental Research Risk-Based Security Review Process. This new risk-based security review process provides consistency in policy and procedures across all DoD Components. DARPA will conduct risk-based security reviews of all covered individuals (i.e., Senior/Key Personnel) submitted with fundamental research proposals that a DARPA Program Manager (PM) identifies as “selectable and recommended for funding.” The risk-based security reviews will be conducted by reviewing the Standard Form (SF) 424, “Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded),” its accompanying or referenced documents, and the Research Performance Progress Reports (when applicable), in concert with the OUSD (R&E) Countering Unwanted Influence in Department Funded Research at Institutions of Higher Education.

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 proposers intending to perform fundamental research and does not anticipate applying publication restrictions of any kind to individual awards for fundamental research that may result from this solicitation. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, the Government is not prohibited from considering and selecting research proposals that, while perhaps not qualifying as fundamental research under the foregoing definition, still meet the solicitation criteria for submissions. If proposals are selected for award that offer other than a fundamental research solution, the Government will either work with the proposer to modify the proposed statement of work to bring the research back into line with fundamental research or else the proposer will agree to restrictions in order to receive an award.

University or non-profit research institution performance under this solicitation will 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. On June 8, 2023, the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD (R&E)) released a memorandum, “Policy on Risk-Based Security Reviews on Fundamental Research,” directing Components to establish a risk-based security review program to identify and mitigate undue foreign influence in fundamental research consistent the requirements mandated by NSPM-33. In accordance with these requirements, DARPA will assess all Covered Individuals proposed to support DARPA under all fundamental research proposals, selected for award, for potential undue foreign influence risk factors relating to professional and financial activities. This will be done by https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARPA%20Risk%20Based%20Security%20Reviews%20of%20Fundamental%20Research%20Process1.pdf https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/OUSD%20RE%20Countering%20Unwanted%20Influence%20in%20Department%20Funded%20Research%20at%20Institutions%20of%20Higher%20Education%202.pdf https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/OUSD%20RE%20Countering%20Unwanted%20Influence%20in%20Department%20Funded%20Research%20at%20Institutions%20of%20Higher%20Education%202.pdf https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jun/29/2003251160/-1/-1/1/COUNTERING-UNWANTED-INFLUENCE-IN-DEPARTMENT-FUNDED-RESEARCH-AT-INSTITUTIONS-OF-HIGHER-EDUCATION.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jun/29/2003251160/-1/-1/1/COUNTERING-UNWANTED-INFLUENCE-IN-DEPARTMENT-FUNDED-RESEARCH-AT-INSTITUTIONS-OF-HIGHER-EDUCATION.PDF evaluating information provided via the SF-424 and any accompanying or referenced documents in order to identify and assess any associations or affiliations the Covered Individuals may have with foreign countries of concern (FCOC) (i.e., The Peoples Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea) or FCOC connected entities.

b. 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 consistent with USD(R&E) direction. The academic or non-profit research performer or recipient must also utilize due diligence to identify Foreign Components or participation by Covered Individuals 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.

a. DARPA’s risk-based security review process takes into consideration the entirety of the Covered Individual’s SF-424, current and pending support, and biographical sketch. These potential risk factors, along with any publicly available validation information, are then compared to the “DoD Risk Decision Matrix” to determine the level of mitigation that may be required to proceed, if possible.

i. The risk-based security review process will leverage publicly available lists or reports published by the U.S. federal government. Those lists and reports include, but are not limited to:

1. FY22 Lists Published in Response to Section 1286 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), as amended.

2. Executive Order 13959 “Addressing the Threat From Securities Investments That Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies”: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf

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

4. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) “World Wide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-17/pdf/2020-25459.pdf 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

Community”: www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assess ments/ATA-2023-Unclassified-Report.pdf

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

ii. The DoD has explicitly stated in policy that there are foreign influence risks that are not able to be mitigated and thus would require denial of award. They are:

1. BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2024 (1

OCTOBER 2023) PROSPECTIVE, NO U.S.

INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING THAT

HOSTS A CONFUCIUS INSTITUTE* MAY

RECEIVE DOD FUNDING UNLESS THE

INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAS

BEEN ISSUED A WAIVER BY THE SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 1062 OF

THE WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FY 2021. INSTITUTIONS HOSTING A

CONFUCIUS INSTITUTE ARE AUTOMATICALLY

CLASSIFIED AS “PROHIBITED” UNDER

OUSD(R&E) “POLICY ON RISK-BASED

SECURITY REVIEWS ON FUNDAMENTAL

RESEARCH”

2. AS OF 9 AUGUST 2024, THE DOD IS PROHIBITED

FROM FUNDING OR MAKING AN AWARD OF A

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH PROJECT

PROPOSAL IN WHICH A COVERED INDIVIDUAL

IS PARTICIPATING IN A MALIGN FOREIGN

TALENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM (MFTRP)

OR TO A PROPOSING INSTITUTION THAT DOES

NOT HAVE A POLICY ADDRESSING MFTRP

PURSUANT TO SECTION 10632 OF THE CHIPS

AND SCIENCE ACT OF 2022. INDIVIDUALS

PARTICIPATING IN A MFTRP, AND

INSTITUTIONS WITOUT A POLICY

ADDRESSING MFTRP, ARE AUTOMATICALLY

CLASSIFIED AS “PROHIBITED” UNDER

OUSD(R&E) “POLICY ON RISK-BASED

SECURITY REVIEWS ON FUNDAMENTAL

RESEARCH”

* The term “Confucius Institute” means a cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2023-Unclassified-Report.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2023-Unclassified-Report.pdf https://www.dcsa.mil/

iii. Any changes to covered individuals will require submission of an SF 424 and its attachments, a security-based risk assessment, and approval by the contracting officer and program manager.

iv. Security-based risk assessments will also be conducted if changes to covered individuals reporting criteria are reflected in the Research Performance Progress Reports.

v. To the greatest extent practicable, DARPA will work with the proposing institution to ensure that if the risk is able to be mitigated, it will make every effort to do so. If the proposing institution refuses to, or is unable to mitigate the identified risks, it may result in a denial of award.

vi. Proposing institutions who have their fundamental research proposal rejected due to the risk-based…