HR001124S0017.pdf

Adaptive Capabilities Office (ACO) & Aerospace Projects Office (APO) Office-Wide

Broad Agency Announcement

HR001124S0017

February 12, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description 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

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Adaptive Capabilities Office (ACO) & Aerospace Projects Office (APO) Funding Opportunity Title – DARPA Adaptive Capabilities Office (ACO) &

Aerospace Projects Office (APO): Office-Wide Broad Agency Announcement Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001124S0017 Assistance Listing Number– Not applicable Dates o Posting Date: February 12, 2024 o Abstract Due Date and Time: Abstracts may be submitted on a rolling basis until

1:00PM Eastern Time on November 30, 2024 o Proposal Due Date and Time: Proposals may be submitted on a rolling basis until

1:00PM Eastern Time on January 31, 2025 o BAA Closing Date: 1:00PM Eastern Time on January 31, 2025 o Estimated period of performance start: Approximately 120 calendar days after proposal submission Concise description of the funding opportunity: This announcement seeks revolutionary research ideas for topics of interest for the Adaptive Capabilities Office (ACO) and Aerospace Projects Office (APO)

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Anticipated Funding Type – 6.2 and 6.3 Types of instruments that may be awarded - Procurement contract or other transaction.

Agency contact o Point of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at HR001124S0017@darpa.mil

ATTN: HR001124S0017

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 (All correspondence should reference the program of interest (ACO or APO)) mailto:HR001124S0017@darpa.mil

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 CFR § 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.

Proposed research should investigate approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. The Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) anticipates funding a limited number of proposals under this BAA. Specifically excluded are existing mature solutions and research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to existing technologies.

This BAA covers technology areas of interest for two DARPA Offices – Adaptive Capabilities Office and the Aerospace Projects Office. While proposers may address more than one Relevant Technology Area in a single proposal, each proposal may only support one of the two DARPA Offices. Proposers are strongly encouraged to limit the scope of proposed efforts to a single clearly identifiable research technical area with quantitative technical metrics across all phases.

A. Adaptive Capabilities Office

The Adaptive Capabilities Office (ACO), working in close partnership with the military services, develops adaptive warfighting architectures that combine emerging technologies with new warfighting constructs to address the challenges faced by military forces. Over the past few decades, the effective projection of military power has become increasingly dependent on complex combinations of capabilities resident in all domains in order to achieve combined effects not possible from individual platforms or services. The combination of effects created by systems in or delivered through all domains, from the seafloor to space, including those via cyber and the electromagnetic spectrum dictates a different approach to concept development. While DoD still delivers effects that could be described by linear ‘kill chains’ with a single execution path, this new level of complexity also demands an understanding of ‘kill webs’- complex representations of effect chains with multiple possible paths that require adaptive architectures that can handle the rapidly changing context of modern combat. These adaptive architectures must be developed through a coherent campaign of study and analysis, constructive modeling and simulation (M&S), and live, virtual, and constructive experimentation. ACO is seeking innovative ideas and disruptive technologies that support this process and that focus on increasing the lethality and freedom of movement of U.S. military forces in complex battlefield conditions.

ACO Relevant Technology Areas:

ACO describes a Kill-Web as a composable ensemble of warfighting elements, able to execute multiple independent kill chains by mapping specific elements to execute various functions of the kill chain. Consequently, ACO is looking to advance the state-of-the-art across the entire detect-to-engage spectrum. Interests specifically include the following technical areas:

1. Architecture – ACO is seeking new, innovative methods for creating and adapting kill webs across all domains and services. The ability to use data analytics and other appropriate tools to optimize kill web architectures is critical.

2. Sensing and tracking – ACO is seeking new, innovative methods for finding and tracking difficult or high value targets in diverse battlefield conditions. Technology-based approaches for rapid geolocation and identification of targets in all physical domains are desired. Additionally, technology solutions enhancing the ability to fuse diverse data and develop tracks at various security levels are desired.

3. Lethality – Increasing the lethality of weapon systems is an important contribution to enhancing overall kill web efficiency. ACO interests include concepts and applications to improve the lethality of weapon systems.

4. Survivability – Survivability is foundational to operations in battlefield operations. ACO seeks to discover technologies that will increase survivability for both weapons and platforms.

5. Communications – Disaggregated, all domain operations require resilient communications across the entire architecture. Innovative approaches for wide area beyond line of sight (BLOS) and line of sight (LOS) communication methods are necessary for the development of effective kill-webs. ACO is seeking technology opportunities to maintain robust, effective communications across the diverse battlefield situations.

6. Advanced Battle Management – Future kill-webs will only be as fast, effective and dynamic as their underlying battle management backbones. ACO seeks technology to enable timely complex battlefield operations across multiple services and domains.

7. Complex all-domain Experimentation – ACO seeks novel approaches and technologies to enable efficient, credible exploration and testing of complex kill-webs.

8. Relevant non-kinetic Effects – ACO seeks novel approaches to achieving the goals in the program overview through non-kinetic means.

9. Faster Than Real Time Modeling and Simulation – ACO is seeking a capability for advanced modeling and simulation of kill-webs and warfighting architectures with the ability to create “mission cost” data-driven functions to inform future funding decisions and battle management approaches. Relevant technologies for modeling and simulation involve:

Modeling and simulation architectures Battle management command and control technologies Model development

Advanced analytics Modeling and simulation user interfaces Analytical tools and concepts

B. Aerospace Projects Office

The Aerospace Projects Office (APO), working in close partnership with Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), develops and demonstrates technologies which enable Next Generation Responsive Strike (Next RS) air platforms. APO envisions reusable hypersonic aircraft attributes providing future multi-mission strike/ISR capabilities against targets protected by advanced air defense systems. APO is seeking innovative technologies that close the gap between the state-of-the-art in reusable hypersonics and the level of technical maturity required to initiate a NextRS Y-Plane design and development program later this decade.

APO Relevant Technology Area:

APO recognizes that a full suite of aircraft and mission systems technologies are needed to eventually field a NextRS weapon system. APO’s focus is strictly on aircraft technology development and demonstrations that reduce risk in specific technical areas to enable future design of reusable hypersonic aircraft. These aircraft technologies will be compatible with the hypersonic environment, modern avionics power/thermal needs and aircraft-like life cycles and time scales. Areas of interest include:

1. Structures and Materials – technologies for high temperature metallic materials and structural concepts that allow design of thermally driven, weight efficient airframes.

2. High Speed Weapon Separation - technologies that allow weapons, weapon bays and ejection systems to accommodate hypersonic separation from aircraft and flyout to the target.

3. Dual mode propulsion- technologies that allow continuous powered operation of a Turbine Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) propulsion system over the entire flight envelope.

4. Power Generation – technologies that allow power generation sufficient to support a modern avionics and sensor suite during all periods of flight.

5. Thermal Management Systems - technologies that allow integrated solutions to managing the thermal environment of the aircraft and propulsion system.

6. High Mach Turbine Engine - technologies that allow efficient TBCC operations through ascending and descending mode transition w/o the need for water injection.

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.

Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed in this document and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. 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.4., “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 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 http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions 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 cannot identify whether the work under this solicitation may be considered fundamental research and may award both fundamental and non-fundamental research.

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 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.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

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.

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

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged.

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 administrative contact listed herein.

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 in the proposal shall be in U.S. Dollars.

1. Abstracts Format

Proposers MUST submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal. Abstracts should follow the same general format as described below in this section. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed 8 pages, which includes all figures, tables, and charts. All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with type not smaller than 12-point. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables and charts. No formal transmittal letter is required. All abstracts must be written in English. All monetary references in the proposal shall be in U.S. Dollars. Official transmittal letter is not required.

Section I. Administrative

(1) Cover sheet to include:

a. BAA Number (HR001124S0017)

b. DARPA Office (ACO or APO)

c. Relevant Technology Area (ACO 1 -9; or APO 1-6) See Section I.A or I.B of this BAA for details

d. Lead Organization submitting proposal abstract

e. Type of Organization selected among the following categories: Large

f. Organization, Small Disadvantaged Organization, Other Small

Organization,

g. HBCU, MI, Other Educational, Other Nonprofit;

h. Abstract Title

i. Technical POC

j. Administrative POC

k. Total Funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any)

l. Date of Submission

Section II. Abstract Details http://www.darpa.mil/

a. Innovative Claims – Summary of innovative claims for the proposed research. This section is the centerpiece of the abstract and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art alternate approaches.

b. Technical Approach – Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production.

c. Deliverables – Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization.

d. Other Research – General discussion of other research in this area.

e. Cost and Schedule – Provide a cost estimate for resources (e.g., labor, materials) and any subcontractors over the proposed timeline of the project, broken down by Government fiscal year.

2. Proposals Format

All full proposals must 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 sections), and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal (composed of 4 sections). Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal shall not exceed 28 pages. Bracketed numbers before each section denote recommended page limits.

The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. There is no page limit for Volume II, Cost Proposal. All full proposals must be written in English. NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal (3 Sections)

(1) Section I: Administrative (1 page)

(a) Cover Sheet to Include

1. BAA number (HR001124S0017);

2. DARPA Office (ACO or APO);

3. Relevant Technology Area (ACO 1 -9; or APO 1-6) See Section I.A or

I.B

4. Lead Organization submitting proposal;

5. Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE

BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER

SMALL BUSINESS”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR

“OTHER NONPROFIT”;

6. Proposer’s reference number (if any);

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

8. Proposal title;

9. 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);

10. 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);

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

AND

12. Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

The transmittal letter should identify the BAA number, Program Office (ACO or APO) the proposal by name, and the proposal reference number (if any), and should be signed by an individual who is authorized to submit proposals to the Government.

(2) Section II: Summary of Proposal

Section II must be no longer than 7 pages and must contain the following information:

(a) Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable creation. (In the full proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III of the Technical and Management Proposal.)

(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.h 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; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year.

(3) Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

Section III must be no longer than 20 pages in all and must include the following:

(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.

Note: It is recommended that the SOW should be developed so that each Phase of the program is separately defined. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.

(b) Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path to supplement information included in the summary of the proposal.

This should also address mitigation of life cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section IV.B.3.i of this BAA., “Intellectual Property.”

(c) This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly summarize the innovative claims for the proposed research and clearly describe the proposed approach without using any jargon. Thoroughly and quantitatively describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-of-art and alternate approaches. This section should demonstrate that the proposer has a clear understanding of the state-of-the-art and should provide sufficient justification for the feasibility of the proposed approach(es).

(d) Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort.

(e) Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas.

(f) Description of Security Management architecture and/or approach for the proposed effort. Detail unique additional security requirements information system certification expertise for controlled unclassified information (CUI) or classified processing, OPSEC, program protection planning, test planning, transportation plans, work being performed at different classification levels, and/or utilizing test equipment not approved at appropriate classification level (may not be applicable for fundamental research).

(g) Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort.

(h) Describe the formal teaming arrangements which will be used to execute this effort.

Describe the programmatic relationship between investigators and the rationale for choosing this teaming strategy. 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; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year.

(i) Provide description of milestone cost and accomplishments.

Volume II, Cost Proposal (4 Sections)

All proposers, including FFRDCs and Government Entities, must submit the following:

(1) Section I: Administrative (1 page)

(a) Cover Sheet to Include

1. BAA number (HR001124S0017);

2. DARPA Office (ACO or APO);

3. Relevant Technology Area (ACO 1 -9; or APO 1-6) See Section I.A or I.B

4. Lead Organization submitting proposal;

5. Type of organization selected among the following categories: “LARGE

BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL

BUSINESS”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER

NONPROFIT”;

6. Proposer’s reference number (if any);

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

8. Proposal title;

9. 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);

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

11. Award instrument requested: cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), cost-contract—no fee, cost sharing contract – no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), or Other Transaction;

12. Place(s) and period(s) of performance;

13. Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s) (if any);

14. Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known);

15. Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense

Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known);

16. Date proposal was prepared;

17. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number;

18. TIN number;

19. CAGE Code;

20. Subawardee Information; and

21. Proposal validity period. (120 days is recommended)

22. Any Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, or other such approved rate information, or such documentation that my assist in expediting negotiations (if available).

(b) Attachment 1, the Cost Volume Proposer Checklist, must be included with the coversheet of the Cost Proposal.

(2) Detailed Cost Information (Prime and Subcontractors)

The proposers’ cost volume shall provide cost and pricing information (See Note 1), or other than cost or pricing information if the total price is under the referenced threshold, in sufficient detail to substantiate the program price proposed (e.g., realism and reasonableness). In doing so, the proposer shall provide, for both the prime and each subcontractor, a “Summary Cost Breakdown” by phase, and performer per fiscal year, and a “Detailed Cost Breakdown” by phase, technical task/sub-task, and month. The breakdown/s shall include, at a minimum, the following major cost items along with associated backup documentation:

(a) Direct Labor A breakout clearly identifying the individual labor categories with associated labor hours and direct labor rates, as well as a detailed Basis-of-Estimate (BOE) narrative description of the methods used to estimate labor costs;

(b) Indirect Costs Including Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General and Administrative Expense, Cost of Money, Fee, etc. (must show base amount and rate);

(c) Travel Provide the purpose of the trip, number of trips, number of days per trip, departure and arrival destinations, number of people, etc.;

(d) Other Direct Costs Itemized with costs; back-up documentation is to be submitted to support proposed costs;

(e) Material/Equipment

(1) An itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined by FAR

2.101 – Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs (vendor quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be provided, including a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding for prime and all sub-awardees.

If the effort is classified SAP and the offeror proposes use of a SAP IT system other than the current DARPA approved SAP IT systems solution, and DARPA approves in writing use of a SAP IT system that is unique or different from the current DARPA approved SAP IT systems solution, then: 1) successful offerors are required to track and provide all SAP IT costs associated with such unique SAP IT system solution, and

2) any such costs, to include costs for associated cybersecurity manpower, shall be reported at least annually to the DARPA Program Manager by Oct 1st of each year for inclusion in the DARPA Annual SAP report. Those costs should also include costs associated with the SAP IT Destruction, disposition, and sanitization processes required in the DoD CIO Memorandum of April 20, 20201. NOTE: If the proposed SAP

1 The title of this memorandum is CUI and the memo is classified SECRET//HANDLE VIA SPECIAL ACCESS CHANNELS ONLY. This memorandum may be provided under separate cover.

IT system for use is the DARPA approved SAP IT systems solution only, then no separate tracking or reporting of costs by the contractor for SAP IT is required.

(2) A priced Bill-of-Material (BOM) clearly identifying, for each item proposed, the quantity, unit price, the source of the unit price (i.e., vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc.), the type of property (i.e., material, equipment, special test equipment, information technology, etc.), and a cross-reference to the Statement of Work (SOW) task/s that require the item/s. At time of proposal submission, any item that exceeds $2,000 must be supported with basis-of estimate (BOE) documentation such as a copy of catalog price lists, vendor quotes or a written engineering estimate (additional documentation may be required during negotiations, if selected).

(3) If seeking a procurement contract and items of Contractor Acquired Property are proposed, exclusive of material, the proposer shall clearly demonstrate that the inclusion of such items as Government Property is in keeping with the requirements of FAR Part 45.102. In accordance with FAR 35.014, “Government property and title,” it is the Government’s intent that title to all equipment purchased with funds available for research under any resulting contract will vest in the acquiring nonprofit institution (e.g., Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education and Nonprofit Organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific research) upon acquisition without further obligation to the Government. Any such equipment shall be used for the conduct of basic and applied scientific research. The above transfer of title to all equipment purchased with funds available for research under any resulting contract is not allowable when the acquiring entity is a for-profit organization;

however, such organizations can, in accordance with FAR 52.245-1(j), be given priority to acquire such property at its full acquisition cost.

(f) Consultants If consultants are to be used, proposer must provide a copy of the consultant’s proposed SOW as well as a signed consultant agreement or other document which verifies the proposed loaded daily / hourly rate and any other proposed consultant costs (e.g., travel);

(g) Subcontracts Itemization of all subcontracts. Additionally, the prime contractor is responsible for compiling and providing, as part of its proposal submission to the Government, subcontractor proposals prepared at the same level of detail as that required by the prime. Subcontractor proposals include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements. If seeking a procurement contract, the prime contractor shall provide a cost reasonableness analysis of all proposed subcontractor costs/prices. Such analysis shall indicate the extent to which the prime contractor has negotiated subcontract costs/prices and whether any such subcontracts are to be placed on a sole-source basis.

All proprietary subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime, which cannot be uploaded to the DARPA BAA website (https://baa.darpa.mil, BAAT) as part of the proposer’s submission, shall be made immediately available to the Government, upon request, under separate cover (i.e., mail, electronic/email, etc.), either by the proposer or by the subcontractor organization. This does not relieve the proposer from the requirement to include, as part of their submission (via BAAT, as applicable), subcontract proposals that do not include proprietary pricing information (rates, factors, etc.).

A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), or similar budgetary estimate, is not considered a fully qualified subcontract cost proposal submission. Inclusion of a ROM, or similar budgetary estimate, may result in the full proposal being deemed non-compliant or evaluation ratings may be lowered;

(h) Cost-Sharing The amount of any industry cost-sharing (the source and nature of any proposed cost sharing should be discussed in the narrative portion of the cost volume).

(i) Small Business Subcontracting Plan If applicable. See Section “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” below.

(j) Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information The cost proposal should include identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (i.e., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.).

Tables included in the cost proposal in editable (e.g., MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact. NOTE: If PDF submissions differ from the Excel submission, the PDF will take precedence.

The Government requires that proposers use the provided MS ExcelTM DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet in the development of their cost proposals. A customized cost proposal spreadsheet may be an attachment to this solicitation. If not, the spreadsheet can be found on the DARPA website at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management (under “Resources” on the right-hand side of the webpage). All tabs and tables in the cost proposal spreadsheet should be developed in an editable format with calculation formulas intact to allow traceability of the cost proposal. This cost proposal spreadsheet should be used by the prime organization and all subcontractors. In addition to using the cost proposal spreadsheet, the cost proposal still must include all other items required in this announcement that are not covered by the editable spreadsheet. Subcontractor cost proposal spreadsheets may be submitted directly to the Government by the proposed subcontractor via e-mail to the address in Part I of this solicitation. Using the provided cost proposal spreadsheet will assist the Government in a rapid analysis of your proposed costs and, if your proposal is selected for a potential award, speed up the negotiation and award execution process.

Note 1:

(a) “Cost or Pricing Data” as defined in FAR 15.403-4 shall be required if the proposer http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management is seeking a procurement contract per the referenced threshold, unless the proposer requests and is granted an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data.

(b) Per DFARS 215.408(5), DFARS 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, applies to all proposers/proposals seeking a FAR-based award (contract).

(c) In accordance with DFARS 215.403-1(4)(D), DoD has waived cost or pricing data requirements for nonprofit organizations (including educational institutions) on cost reimbursement-no-fee contracts. In such instances where the waiver stipulated at DFARs 215.403-1(4)(D) applies, proposers shall submit information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the Government to determine price reasonableness and cost realism; and cost or pricing data from subcontractors that are not nonprofit organizations when the subcontractor’s proposal exceeds the cost and pricing data threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1).

(d) Per Section 873 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub L. 114-92), “Pilot Program For Streamlining Awards For Innovative Technology Projects,” as modified by Sections 896 of the NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) and 832 of the NDAA for FY 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283), small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors (as defined therein) are alleviated from submission of certified cost and pricing data for new contract awards valued at less than $7,500,000. In such instances where this “waiver” applies, proposers seeking a FAR-based contract shall submit information other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the Government to determine price reasonableness and cost realism; and certified cost or pricing data from subcontractors that are not small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors when such subcontract proposals exceed the cost and pricing data threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a)(1).

Note 2:

Proposers requesting an Other Transaction who meet the definition of “nontraditional defense contractor,” as defined at 10 U.S.C Code § 3014, should submit information similar to “data other than certified cost or pricing data,” as defined at FAR 2.101, to the maximum extent possible to allow for the Government to evaluate cost realism. Proposers (to include subcontractors) who do not meet the definition of a nontraditional defense contractor (who are, therefore, considered a traditional defense contractor) shall submit “data other than certified cost or pricing data.” It is incumbent on a proposer requesting an Other Transaction to provide an adequate amount of cost information needed in order for the Government to be able to evaluate cost realism. Failure to provide an adequate amount of cost information will result in the proposal being deemed non-conforming.

Note 3:

Proposers are required to provide the aforementioned cost breakdown as an editable MS Excel spreadsheet, inclusive of calculations formulae, with tabs (material, travel, ODC’s) provided as necessary. The Government also requests and recommends that the Cost Proposal include MS Excel file(s) that provide traceability between the Bases of Estimate (BOEs) and the proposed costs across all elements and phases. This includes the calculations and adjustments that are utilized to generate the Summary Costs from the source labor hours, labor costs, material costs, etc. input data. It is requested that the costs and Subcontractor proposals be readily traceable to the Prime Cost Proposal in the provided MS Excel file(s) – although this is not a requirement, providing information in this manner will assist the Government in understanding what is being proposed both technically and in terms of cost realism. NOTE: If the PDF submission differs from the Excel submission, the PDF will take precedence.

Any questions pertaining to use of the DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet, to include permitted changes and prohibited changes thereto, should be directed to costproposal@darpa.mil.

Please be sure to read the instructions provided in the "General" and "Instructions" tabs prior to starting the process of entering data into the spreadsheet. It is very important that proposers not make changes to the format of the spreadsheet where specifically instructed not to do so.

Other Transaction Request, if applicable

All proposers requesting an Other Transaction (OT) must include a detailed list of payable milestones (Milestone Plan). Each milestone must include the following:

Milestone description Completion/Exit criteria (to include identifying all associated data deliverables excluding those specifically providing project status) Due date Payment/funding schedule (to include, if cost share is proposed, awardee and

Government share amounts) For each data deliverable, identify the proposed Government data rights

(Keeping in mind the how each data deliverable will need to be used by the Government given the goals and objectives of the proposed project)

It is noted that, at a minimum, milestones should relate directly to accomplishment of program technical metrics as defined in the BAA and/or the proposer’s proposal. Agreement type, expenditure or fixed-price based, will be subject to negotiation by the Agreements Officer. Do not include proprietary data.

Other Cost Information

Where the effort consists of multiple portions which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates.

The cost proposal should include identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (i.e., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.).

The proposer should include supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates and should include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation.

Cost proposals submitted by FFRDC’s (prime or subcontractor) will be forwarded, if selected for negotiation, to their sponsoring organization contracting officer for review to confirm that all required forward pricing rates and factors have been used.

3. Additional Proposal Information

a) Proprietary Markings

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. Submissions containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such information clearly marked…