HR001124S0013.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement

Scientific Feasibility (SciFy)

INFORMATION INNOVATION OFFICE

HR001124S0013

March 1, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Overview B. Program Structure C. Program Metrics D. Intellectual Property

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

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching D. Other Eligibility Criteria

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

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices and Notifications B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems E. DARPA Embedded Entrepreneur Initiative (EEI)

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

IX. APPENDIX 1 – PROPOSAL SUMMARY SLIDE

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Information Innovation Office (I2O) Funding Opportunity Title – Scientific Feasibility (SciFy) Announcement Type – Initial announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001124S0013 Assistance Listing Number – 12.910 Research and Technology Development Dates o Posting Date: March 01, 2024 o Proposers Day: March 7, 2024 o Abstract Due Date and Time: March 18, 2024, 12:00 PM ET o Questions Due: April 11, 2024, 12:00 PM ET o Proposal Due Date and Time: April 25, 2024 , 12:00 PM

Program Overview – The SciFy program will develop computational methods to measure the feasibility of claims in order to enable accurate assessments of scientific content.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, or Prototype Other Transaction agreements.

Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

Email: SciFy@darpa.mil

DARPA/I2O

ATTN: HR001124S0013

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. 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 C.F.R. § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent laws and regulations, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following areas of interest: feasibility assessment of scientific content and testing and evaluation of feasibility assessment methods. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

A. Program Overview

Introduction

Advancements in large pre-trained models capable of generating scientific content are rapidly evolving, posing a significant and growing challenge in the realm of information integrity and authenticity. A rapid, scalable, compelling generator for inaccurate scientific content could disrupt the US technology base in times of crisis, such as pandemics, disaster relief, and military events, or upend the global race for technological dominance in key areas. False capability claims can also have significant implications for national security and international relations, as they can obscure the true nature of military actions and capabilities; however, determining feasibility of advanced technologies, such as quantum computing, often requires deep technical expertise, access to detailed information about the technology, and the ability to conduct testing or independent verification. Overcoming these challenges requires developing new, robust methods to automatically review, reason, verify, and evaluate capability claims, especially in sensitive areas surrounding national security and defense.

The objective of the Scientific Feasibility (SciFy) program is to develop computational methods that measure the feasibility of claims in order to enable accurate assessments of scientific content. The program’s focus will be on claims that express scientific and technological capabilities. The program aims to demonstrate that the scientific feasibility of claims can be determined by using automated reasoning to decompose claims into constituent, verifiable parts.

The program will produce methods that perform well beyond current automated fact-checkers, recognizing that feasibility assessment is a complex process that requires breaking claims down into constituent components that contribute to a whole, resulting functionality. Automatically assessing each component may involve identifying and using existing technological advancements, foundational scientific principles, data, software or simulation results, as well as current industry standards or benchmarks. This assessment necessitates the development of sophisticated automated techniques capable of managing the rapid expansion of evidence, ensuring that the synthesis and explanation of this evidence is both efficient and reliable. It is also necessary to determine whether the claimed technological capability, while theoretically possible in parts, is practical and realistic when considered as a whole, which may require evaluating logical consistency, system integration, and compatibility considerations.

A scientific feasibility assessment must address both the limitations and the potential of capability claims, which may involve the consideration of scientific knowledge that spans disciplinary boundaries. The methods produced on the program should not only emulate subject matter expert validation, but allow for analyses that extend beyond the limits of human cognition to create and consider technical hypotheses that are possible based on available scientific knowledge. Additionally, the approaches developed on the program should consider the operational feasibility of technologies, for example, under time and cost constraints.

Technical Areas

To achieve the automation of feasibility assessment, the program will be structured into two technical areas: (1) feasibility assessment, and (2) test and evaluation.

DARPA anticipates funding multiple technical approaches and performers for TA1 and making a single TA2 award. Proposers may submit multiple proposals. The Government reserves the right to decide which, if any, are selected for award. If a performer is selected for TA2 award, the performer cannot be selected for TA1 either as a prime or subcontractor.

The individual TAs are elaborated upon below.

Technical Area 1: Feasibility Assessment

TA1 has two components: (1) claim decomposition to create reasoning chains (or candidate hypotheses), and (2) evaluation of those chains.

Reasoning is the process of drawing and evaluating conclusions from a given body of information. Because of its computational difficulty, successfully solving any arbitrary reasoning problem is beyond the scope of the program. However, unlike instances of arbitrary reasoning problems, science- and technology-focused reasoning problems can rely on knowledge and structures that represent our collective understanding of the world and particularly our understanding of a scientific domain. For problems of this type, approaches should utilize the structure of a given domain and be able to rigorously characterize relationships within that domain to ground what is conceptually or physically possible.

Scientific reasoning should derive conclusions that can also serve as explanations. That is, it should produce a sequence of steps that are appropriately connected to one another via sound logical relations. Confidence in the correctness of a system's reasoning ability is also an important outcome and should weigh into the overall feasibility assessment. Previous work has investigated methods for interacting with large language models (LLMs) using prompt design for reasoning tasks, including providing examples or instructions, specifying inductive or deductive reasoning methods, or using chain-of-thought approaches. These methods aim to derive the right answer for the right reasons, with attention to not learning unsound shortcuts, such as cue words, heuristics, or spurious statistical regularities; however, many techniques struggle on logical or system-two (2) reasoning tasks that require deliberate, multi-step reasoning.

TA1 will develop evidence-based approaches that leverage recent advances in LLMs or other technologies to decompose claims into verifiable, constituent parts, requiring novel advances in areas such as scientific LLMs and inference techniques optimized specifically for scientific reasoning questions. Work in this area should develop innovative methods to replicate non-linear, human-like reasoning processes, such as (but not limited to) the family of ‘chain-of-thought’ methods1. Additionally, methods that can plan and actuate scientific validation actions (e.g., running code or simulators to confirm results; tasking scientific agents to gather and analyze information or design and run experiments) will be an important part of TA1. These methods are expected to be informed by methods used by subject matter experts (SMEs) but must extend beyond the current state of the art. New methods must be adept at learning how to form and validate appropriate reasoning formulations (e.g., decomposition, heuristics, iteration, calls to external systems). This functionality may include approaches that require LLMs or other models to formalize their reasoning (e.g., expressed in symbolic notation that is amenable to proof checking) or to train and use other LLMs to check reasoning chains expressed in natural language.

Evaluation approaches must be able to effectively manage a large hypothesis space (e.g., by using a verifier function that can “advise” as to relevant evaluation methods for a particular scientific domain). A notional architecture that includes an evaluation function as part of a system managed by a ‘planner’, which interacts with external data sources through a large language model, is depicted in Figure 1. Of note is the existence of an independent ‘evaluator’ function that can be human-inspected and potentially separately trained on domain-specific knowledge and best practices. An evaluation function may also be used to inform the ‘planner’ as to what information needs to be derived from external sources. The use of data sources external to the model may ground hypothesis generation according to verified scientific knowledge and may be updated as the evaluator is continuously trained.

Figure 1: Notional architecture demonstrating the use of an LLM with an evaluator function.

1 Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., ... & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 24824-24837.

TA1 proposals should include a plan that describes the use of an initial dataset, of the proposer’s choosing, with which to begin development at the program’s outset. The specific scientific domain of this initial dataset is the choice of the performer. Subsequent domains that the program will focus on are: (1) materials science, (2) artificial intelligence, and (3) quantum computing. These three domains were chosen to represent areas relevant to national defense and that vary as to appropriate validation approaches. Proposals should include a description and cost of the data sources that are anticipated to be used, with the understanding that these data sources may be augmented through shared resources during the program.

Technical Area 2: Test and Evaluation

Previous studies have focused on evaluating reasoning abilities of LLMs for tasks such as multiple-choice questions or binary classification. Unlike these simple discriminative tasks, determining the feasibility of scientific claims requires deductive reasoning, a generative activity where outputs are understood as rationale. Often-used metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE, semantic-similarity) are not sufficient for evaluating over large hypothesis spaces where there may exist many feasible answers. Quantitative evaluations must also avoid LLM contamination, i.e., when models have already seen the training or evaluation datasets.

The primary objective of the test and evaluation team is to produce gold standard datasets of labelled content for use in technical evaluations. Approaches in this TA must develop original datasets that are sufficiently large, of high quality, and support multiple types of reasoning tasks.

These datasets must also represent an understanding of the dimensions that make a feasibility determination possible, which is a separate research task. These dataset characteristics are qualities reflected in the scientific domain and the claim itself. For example, the claim “Steel can maintain structural integrity up to 400 degrees Celsius” is likely easier to evaluate than the claim “Intelligent mines can discriminate between soldiers and civilians.” Sampling over these dimensions will be a critical component to evaluation.

Data acquisition approaches will likely vary over the course of the program, such as leveraging previously collected scientific evaluation datasets and automatically generating counter claims across modalities (e.g., text, tables, graphs, equations and flow-charts). Proposals should elucidate innovative methods for test data generation, while describing research approaches for appropriately determining and quantifying data dimensions pertinent to producing feasibility determinations.

The accuracy of the performers’ scientific feasibility assessments will be measured through agreement with SMEs in each domain and will include accuracy of the feasibility assessment, completeness (e.g., were steps missing), and correctness (e.g., do the steps make sense).

Proposals should describe the methods that will be used for gathering validation evidence, used to inform SMEs, and the SME assessment process, to include a plan for determining SME agreement. These methods may include determining scientific consensus (e.g., among subject matter experts and scientific communities), identifying proven demonstrations, or the use of simulation, among others.

The TA2 performer will organize and host program evaluations in the form of planned testing events at the end of each technical domain sprint (see Figure 2) using scientific content test datasets, where both complexity of the domain and the content will increase as the program progresses.

Because of the current rapid pace of development in Artificial Intelligence (AI), a critical additional component of evaluation will be comparing against current state-of-the-art AI approaches for claim feasibility measurement, which will constitute implicit go/no-go points in the program. State of the art approaches will be determined by the TA 2 performer prior to evaluation events. Proposals should outline a plan to use standardized, relevant benchmarks for making state of the art determinations.

B. Program Structure

SciFy is a 32-month, one phase program, consisting of three (3) technical sprints defined by the scientific domain of concentration (Figure 2). These domains are intended to represent a progression in scientific complexity.

Events will include a three-day kick-off meeting and three (3), four-day evaluation and PI meeting events that will occur at the end of each domain sprint, with the first domain evaluation at month 12, the second domain evaluation at month 22, and the third domain evaluation at month 32. The TA2 performer will coordinate with DARPA to plan, organize, and host the evaluation and PI meeting events.

Proposers should plan and budget for the attendance of appropriate and relevant personnel at all events. Relevant personnel may vary by event type; however, best practice is to assume that events should be attended by everyone likely to contribute to the objectives, and PI meetings should be attended by everyone with significant roles in the program who could contribute to, or benefit from, the discussions at the meeting.

For budgeting purposes, assume the locations of events will alternate between Washington, D.C., and San Diego, CA. PI meetings that follow evaluation events will be co-located. The Government also anticipates making visits to performer sites at least once per year, which should be budgeted for as 1-day events.

Figure 2: Schedule for the SciFy program

C. Program Metrics

In order for the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed solution in achieving the stated program objectives, proposers should note that DARPA has identified the following program metrics (Figure 3) that may serve as the basis for determining whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the performer work. Although the following program metrics are specified, 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 in proposing solutions to the stated problem.

Construct Metric Eval 1 Goal

Eval 2 Goal

Eval 3 Goal

Scientific Feasibility on a scale from -2, 2

Weighted Fleiss Kappa (measures error between prediction and SME ground truth*)

.4+ Kappa on topic 1 Outperform SOTA

.6+ Kappa on topic 2 Outperform SOTA

.8+ Kappa on topic 3 Outperform SOTA

Problem Decomposition

Accuracy as a weighted percentage of Correctness and Completeness

80% 90% 95%

*SME agreement will be ensured through inter-rater reliability scores

Figure 3: Program-level metrics

D. Intellectual Property

Intellectual property rights asserted by proposers are highly encouraged to align with open-source regimes, fostering a collaborative and transparent environment. The program places a strong emphasis on creating and leveraging open-source development, along with advocating the use of liberal open-source licensing (e.g., MIT). This strategy includes the establishment of open-source repositories (e.g., GitHub), which are accessible for review by the government team, other performers, and the wider research community. Such an approach is pivotal in promoting a culture of open innovation and shared knowledge. By facilitating this openness, the program aims to spur rapid innovation and continuous improvement. Openness and transparency area achieved by providing a robust foundation for future users or developers of the program’s technologies and deliverables. Moreover, this open-source methodology ensures that the advancements and learnings are not siloed but rather contribute to the collective intelligence of the field, leading to more significant and impactful technological progress.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

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

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, 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 IV.B.3.d., “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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

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

B. Fundamental Research

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

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

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

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

a. 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 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 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 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 malign 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 utilizing a risk-based security review process 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 of the proposer’s submission through Grants.gov.

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

ii. 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.

iii. 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 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

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 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

iv. 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

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern https://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/

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.

v. 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.

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

vii. 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.

viii. Proposing institutions who have their fundamental research proposal rejected due to the risk-based security review process or the inability to come to agreement concerning proposed mitigation strategies may challenge DARPA’s risk-based security review decision. In that instance, DARPA shall refer the challenge to the OUSD(R&E) for mediation.

ix. This process, to include negotiation of risk mitigation measures, is not to be considered as part of the time-to-award.

c. Failure of the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient to reasonably exercise due diligence to discover or ensure that neither it nor any of its Covered Individuals are involved in the subject award are participating in a Malign Foreign Government Talent Program or have a Foreign Component with FCOC or FCOC-connected entity may result in the Government exercising remedies in accordance with Federal law and regulation.

i. If, at any time, during performance of this research award, the academic or non-profit research performer or recipient should learn that it, its Covered Individuals, or applicable team members or subtier performers on this award are or are believed to be participants in a malign foreign government talent program or exhibiting behaviors/actions identified in the DoD Component Decision Matrix (i.e., funding from a FCOC or FCOC-connected entity, patents resulting from U.S. government funded research that were filed with a FCOC or on behalf of a FCOC-connected entity, and associations or affiliations with foreign government connected entities), the performer or recipient will notify the Government Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer within 5 business days.

1. This disclosure must include specific information as to the personnel involved and the nature of the situation and relationship. The Government will have 30 business days to review this information and conduct any necessary fact-finding or discussion with the performer or recipient.

2. Such disclosure could result in a termination of award at the government’s discretion.

3. If the University receives no response from the Government to its disclosure within 30 business days, it may presume that the Government has determined the disclosure does not represent a threat.

ii. The performer or recipient must flow down this provision to any subtier contracts or agreements involving direct participation in the performance of the research.

DARPA’s analysis and assessment of affiliations and associations of Covered Individuals is compliant with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Information regarding race, color, or national origin is not collected and does not have bearing in DARPA’s assessment. University or non-profit research institutions with proposals selected for negotiation that have been assessed as having potential undue foreign influence risk factors, as defined by the DoD Decision Matrix, will be given an opportunity during the negotiation process to mitigate the risk. DARPA reserves the right to request any follow-up information needed to assess potential risk factors or proposed risk mitigation strategies.

d. Definitions: Definitions can be found in the June 08, 2023 USD(R&E) memorandum, “Policy for Risk Based Security Reviews of Fundamental Research,” or as it is amended.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research.

In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of this research for exclusive competition among these entities.

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

a) FFRDCs FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this solicitation in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

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

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

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

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements

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

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy

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

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

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

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

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

An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures

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

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

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

C. Cost Sharing/Matching

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

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

D. Other Eligibility Criteria

If a performer is selected for TA2 award, the performer cannot be selected for TA1 either as a prime or subcontractor.

Proposals to conduct work requiring the storage, processing or generation of classified information will not be considered. TA2 industry proposals must demonstrate the ability to deliver work product at the appropriate CUI protection level required by the transition system’s program office guidance in time to commence program execution in accordance with their proposed statement of work (SOW), no later than sixty (60) calendar days after contract award.

CUI criteria do not apply to proposed on-campus university research pursuing non-military and non-space applications. Industry proposers must demonstrate the following capabilities:

1. The ability to safeguard CUI information IAW DFARS 252.204-7012, 252.204–7008, and 252.204-7000 (or similar terms and conditions if awarded an Other Transaction)

2. The ability to separate CUI tasks and information from information shared with fundamental research participants on SciFy

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at www.darpa.mil, contact the BAA Coordinator listed herein.

http://www.darpa.mil/

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title. All monetary references shall be in U.S.

Dollars.

1. Abstracts Format Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal. The abstract is a concise version of the proposal comprising a maximum of two (2) pages including all figures, tables, and charts. The required cover sheet, and optional submission letter, table of contents, or appendices are not included in the page count.

The suggested abstract components are:

A. Cover Sheet (required): Include the administrative and technical points of contact (title, name, address, phone, e-mail, lead organization). Also include the BAA number, title of the proposed project (not the BAA title), Technical Area, subcontractors, estimated cost, duration of the project, and the label “ABSTRACT.”

B. Executive Summary: Clearly describe what is being proposed and what difference it will make (qualitatively and quantitatively).

D. Technical Plan: Outline and address all technical challenges inherent in the approach and possible solutions for overcoming potential problems. Describe milestones and how they will be achieved.

E. Management and Capabilities Plan: Identify the principal investigator, provide a brief summary of expertise of the team, including subcontractors and key personnel, and include relevant expertise.

F. Cost and Schedule: Provide a cost estimate for resources over the proposed timeline of the project. Include cost estimates for each potential subcontractor (it may be a rough order of magnitude).

C. Executive Summary Slide: The slide template is provided as Appendix 1 to the BAA posted at https://SAM.gov.

2. Proposals Format

All proposals should be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (composed of 3 parts), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page count for Volume I is 15 pages, and excludes the cover page, summary slide, official transmittal letter, and any table of contents or appendices, but does include figures, tables, and charts.

NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

(1) Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to Include

(1) BAA number (HR001124S0013)

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”;

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

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

(7) Proposal title;

(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available);

(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available);

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

(2) Section II: Summary of Proposal

A. Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation.

B. Innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

C. Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization. Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.3.i of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

D. General discussion of other research in this area.

E. A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members;

(3) the task of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members (5) the principal investigator (PI), co-PI, and program manager (if applicable) for each team member to include subcontractor’s PI, co-PI, and program manager; and (6) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year.

F. A summary slide of the proposed effort, in PowerPoint format, should be submitted with the proposal. Submit this PowerPoint file in addition to Volumes 1 and 2. The format for the summary slide is included as Appendix 1 to this BAA and does not count against the page limit.

(3) Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

A. Statement of Work (SOW) - Clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. For each task/subtask, provide:

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

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

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

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

Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities; and Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (to be performed by either an awardee or subawardee) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university, if applicable.

Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

B. Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path to supplement…