HR001124S0037.pdf

Broad Agency Announcement Information Innovation Office

Provably Weird Network Deployment and Detection

(PWND²)

HR001124S0037

September 19, 2024

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

SECTION I: OVERVIEW

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Information Innovation (I2O)

Funding Opportunity Title – Provably Weird Network Deployment and Detection

(PWND²)

Announcement Type – Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number – HR001124S0037

Assistance Listing Number: Not applicable

Dates/Time - All Times are Eastern Time Zone (ET) o Industry Day: August 28, 2024 o Posting Date: September 19, 2024 o Proposal Abstract Due Date: October 1, 2024 at 5:00 PM o Question Submittal Closed: October 17, 2024 at 5:00 PM o Proposal Due Date: November 05, 2024 at 5:00 PM

Anticipated individual awards - Multiple awards are anticipated.

Award Type – Months 0-6 – Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype (OT-P) Months 7-30 – Procurement Contract or continuation of OT-P

NAICS Code: 541715

Agency contact - The BAA Coordinator for this effort may be reached at:

PWND2@darpa.mil

DARPA/ I2O

ATTN: HR001124S0037

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

Acquisition Strategy Overview– PWND² will utilize a unique acquisition approach, which is summarized immediately below and will be discussed in Section IV and VII.

o 2-Stage Submission Process Overview – PWND2 will have a two-stage submission process. Staged submissions allow DARPA and potential performer(s) to focus on the development of novel technical solutions while providing the Government the minimum viable submission requirements for cost or pricing documentation in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Refer to Section IV for the stage submission overview.

o 2-Step Award Process Overview – PWND² will have a two-step award process.

The following are the two instrument options selected performers will receive and subsequently negotiate:

Step 1: Upon selection in Stage 1, all selected proposers will receive a

Kick-Start Other Transaction (OT) for Prototype Agreement to support Months 1-6 of the PWND2 program.

Step 2: Performers may negotiate additional terms and conditions of the Kick-Start OT Agreement, extending the term scope of the OT Agreement into Months 7-30 or selected performers may choose to negotiate a Procurement Contract to perform tasks proposed for Months 7-30.

See Section VII for additional information regarding the two-step award process.

Attachments to the Solicitation The PWND2 program will use the below attachments to inform proposers of formatting and content requirements for each submission. The use of the below attachments is strongly encouraged; proposers who choose not to use the applicable attachments are at greater risk of submitting a non-conforming submission. See Section VI for greater detail surrounding conforming and non-conforming. Immediately below is a list of attachments associated with this BAA.

o Abstract Attachments Attachment A-1 Abstract Instructions and Submission Template Attachment A-2 Abstract Summary Slide Template o Stage 1 Attachments Attachment S1-1 Proposal Instructions with Technical and Management

Proposal Template Attachment S1-2 Proposal Summary Slide Template Attachment S1-3 Kick Start Other Transaction (OT) Agreement Attachment S1-4 Kick Start OT Price Proposal Attachment S1-5 Stage 2 Basis of Estimate (BOE) Instructions and

Submission Template o Stage 2 Attachments (Provided for Awareness Only and Subject to Change).

*These documents are not included in the BAA.

Attachment S2–1 DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet Attachment S2–2 Proposal Instructions with Cost Proposal Template Attachment S2–3 Schedule of Milestones and Payments (Fixed Price

Based) Attachment S2-4 Representations and Certifications (Procurement

Contract)

SECTION II: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the technical areas of software defined networking, formal methods, and privacy to develop technologies that provide provable guarantees for hidden communications systems. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

Hidden communication systems (HCSs) are an essential element to national security and the internet freedom community. However, despite the importance of HCSs in our national security posture and open communication worldwide, prevailing HCS design methodologies are inadequate. Modern HCS development remains a manual process; systems are designed with ad hoc techniques, validated via empirical testing, and deployed without any guarantees that users will remain hidden.

The current approach has several drawbacks. First, it is slow and uncertain – it is a manual search of a complex design space, tuned to an understanding of the state of the network at a particular time despite inevitable changes in the network. Second, the current approach only provides temporary advantages over the adversary – once a technique is identified by the adversary, the community must return to the slow, manual task of designing new privacy techniques. Third, it encourages use of individual, static techniques in isolation, because each is a bespoke capability, implemented in a vacuum.

Once HCS networks are constructed, their properties are measured and validated via expensive empirical testing and analysis. These tests have difficulty capturing the range of esoteric, real-world network environments, and would require infeasible amounts of at-scale testing to assess functionality across that range.

To address these challenges, the Provably Weird Network Deployment and Detection (PWND²) program seeks to develop formal models of emergent communication pathways (weird networks) to fundamentally improve how we deploy and detect robust and resilient hidden networks in the real world. As a first step towards that goal, PWND² will test the technical hypothesis that software-defined networking approaches paired with formal methods can provide provable privacy and performance guarantees for hidden communication systems at meaningful scale.

PWND² defines the term weird network (WN) as infrastructure that enables emergent, unintended communications outside the original specification of a network, and can formally represent any form of hidden or obfuscated communication. This concept is analogous to how weird machines1 provide a formalism for describing unintended, emergent code execution. WNs are use-case agnostic and can enable hidden communications in support of internet freedom or other use cases where the fact that entities are communicating needs to be kept secret.

1 Bratus, S. ; Locasto, Me & Patterson, Ml (2011). Exploit Programming: From Buffer Overflows to “Weird Machines” and Theory of Computation. Usenix; Login:13–21.

To accurately model and analyze performance and privacy properties, PWND² will examine WNs as components of larger systems that enable hidden communications. It is critical to understand the patterns of communications flowing through the network as well as the capabilities of the adversary attempting to find these hidden communications. In many cases, it is much easier to hide when there are small, infrequent messages and it is trivial to hide when nobody is looking for you. As such, a PWND² HCS includes:

1. The application running over the WN;

2. The actual WN;

3. The underlying traditional network that the WN emerged from; and

4. The capabilities of the adversary

To test the hypothesis, PWND² research teams will seek to create a new domain specific language (DSL) and formal analysis tools to verify performance, scalability, security, and privacy properties of WNs in the context of an HCS.

PWND² Technical Approach

As depicted in Figure 1 below, the program consists of a single technical area (TA) divided into two focus areas (FAs) with integrated teams testing the hypothesis on existing, known WN examples. FA1 will research and develop a DSL capable of modeling emergent, hidden communications. FA2 will research and develop analysis tools and techniques grounded in formal methods to examine hidden communications systems represented in the FA1 DSL to provide provable performance and privacy guarantees. Over the course of the program, teams will demonstrate that their approaches can ultimately scale to networks consisting of thousands of nodes. The PWND² program will focus on WN that emerge from layers 3-5 of traditional Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)/Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Emergence at the Physical (PHY) and Media Access Control (MAC) layers, along with emergent analog communications, are out of scope for PWND². Proposals must address both FAs as described in this BAA to be accepted for review.

FA1: Modeling in rigorous DSL

• Emergent communications

• Application requirements

• Adversary capabilities

FA2: Analysis grounded in formal methods

• Relationship between underling networks and emergent behaviors

• Provable performance, scalability, security, and privacy guarantees

Hidden Communications System

Application

Weird Network

NetworkAd ve rs ar y

Test and evaluation

• Simulation framework and empirical test range

• Provide hidden communication systems

• Implement adversary capabilities

• Craft experiments to validate guarantees

Figure 1: PNWD² Program Structure

PWND² will be tested with a series of experiments around increasingly complex HCSs (challenge problems) provided by the Government test and evaluation (T&E) team. PWND² teams will model those systems and provide a set of guarantees about the systems that can be validated by T&E.

FA1: The DSL developed under FA1 will be able to model and represent HCSs at sufficient resolution and detail to support FA2 analyses. Proposers should describe how their DSL will represent all 4 components of an HCS (the application, WN, underlying network, and adversary capabilities) and the interdependencies between them.

Proposals should discuss their approach to representing application semantics in their DSL. This discussion should include message formats and sizes, traffic patterns, and topology (e.g., client/server), and how these semantics relate to performance and privacy properties of an HCS.

The challenge problem HCSs will incorporate known, existing WNs to be modeled in the DSL.

These networks emerge from protocols in layers 3-5 of the TCP/IP stack and will vary in sophistication and detectability. To prove the program’s technical hypothesis, FA1 DSLs should be able to rigorously model a variety of representative WNs to support proving guarantees.

Proposers should consider the following WN examples to help scope their technical approach:

• Domain Name System (DNS) tunnelling such as iodine2;

• Obfuscated channels3 developed on the DARPA Resilient Anonymous Communications for Everyone (RACE4) program; and,

• Pluggable transports5 from the internet freedom community such as obfs, meek, or flashlight.

While proposals may explicitly address the above examples to explain their approach, strong proposals will clearly describe how their approach can be generalized.

PWND² teams have the option of providing their own WN examples to the T&E team for incorporation into challenge problems to further demonstrate their solutions. Proposers must clearly explain why the specific WN is suited for their technical approach. Teams will be required to deliver all software and binaries for that WN in a format specified by the T&E team.

For modeling underlying networks in the FA1 DSL, proposers should clearly explain their approach and include plans for topology and protocol representation. Strong proposals will show how the DSL can be used to identify the preconditions in underlying networks that lead to emergent communications.

FA1 DSLs should include formal models of privacy-hunting adversaries, i.e., those looking to discover the "fact of" communications, to provide context for security and privacy guarantees.

2 https://code.kryo.se/iodine/ 3 https://github.com/tst-race/race-quickstart/ 4 https://www.darpa.mil/program/resilient-anonymous-communication-for-everyone 5 https://obfuscation.github.io

PWND² seeks to characterize HCSs against both passive and active adversaries seeking to detect the existence of hidden communications as well as identify the users of those systems. Proposers should clearly describe their approach to modeling the capabilities of privacy-hunting adversaries. Table 1 contains example adversary characteristics and capabilities.

Table 1: Example adversary characteristics and capabilities Passive Adversary Active Adversary Analysis of connection statistics DNS Spoofing Analysis of packet statistics Network degradation Deep packet inspection and analysis Connection resets Historical comparisons Packet manipulation Different vantage points Byzantine attacks

While proposals may explicitly address these adversary capabilities, strong proposals will describe how their approach to modeling privacy-hunting adversaries can be generalized.

The FA1 DSL should also be able to describe and characterize the performance, scalability, security, and privacy properties (Table 2) of the HCS such that FA2 analysis tools can provide guarantees. Strong proposals will explain how their DSL represents and models the relationships among these properties to better understand fundamental tradeoffs between performance and privacy.

Finally, proposals should discuss their approach for modeling HCSs in their DSL. At the start of the program, small challenge problems can easily be manually encoded in the DSL. However, as the program advances, larger, more complex HCSs will likely require machine-assisted techniques to encode in PWND² FA1 DSLs.

FA2: FA2 tools will analyze WNs described in the FA1 DSL to formally characterize the relationship between underlying networks and emerging behaviors and to provide provable performance, scalability, security, and privacy guarantees about the HCS. Table 2 contains the set of guarantees PWND² technologies will provide.

Table 2: PWND² Guarantees Performance Scalability Security Privacy Throughput Number of nodes Channel confidentiality Linkability Latency Number of messages Channel integrity Node detectability Goodput Rate of messages Channel availability Network activity detectability Non-interference Operating duration Channel authentication Anonymity

FA2 solutions must be able to prove at least two guarantees in each class (columns in Table 2) and define how those guarantees are expressed (e.g., ranges, probabilities, etc.). Strong proposals will describe how the approach to FA2 is generalizable and could be used to provide additional guarantees for HCSs. While the T&E team is responsible for crafting experiments to measure the guarantees in Table 2, proposers may suggest measurement approaches for their proposed FA2 guarantees. Teams may propose different guarantees than those in Table 2; however, they must clearly explain 1) why those guarantees are more suitable to their technical approach; 2) how those guarantees are relevant and useful for HCSs; and 3) how those additional guarantees can be empirically measured by the T&E team.

Metrics and Evaluation

The program metrics (Table 3) are designed around the challenge problems, with measurable milestones every 6 Months, either as a risk-reducing demonstration or a test to measure program progress.

Table 3: PWND2 Program Metrics M6 Demo M12 Test M18 Demo M24 Test M30 Test

Application Type Simplex Duplex Client/Server Peer-peer Client/Server

# Different WN Channel Types 1 2 5 5 5

Weird Network Size (# nodes) 2 101 102 104

Adversary Model None Passive Passive and Active Active

Classes of Guarantees Performance + Scalability + Security + Privacy All

Validated Guarantees - 50% - 75% 75%

Validation t-test p-value - P ≤ .10 - P ≤ .05 P ≤ .05 Scalability (n=WN size, m=underlying network size) Polynomial O(n3 + m2) O(n3 + m2) O(n2 + m) O(n2 + m)

Challenge problems will increase in application complexity, size, adversary capabilities and additional provable guarantees over the course of the program. The first challenge problem consists of a simplex application, such as a digital dead drop or signaling application. It will use one WN channel to communicate between nodes with no adversarial presence. PWND² teams should demonstrate that they can prove performance guarantees about that HCS. The second problem adds bidirectionality, a second WN channel, and a passive adversary. For the second challenge, teams will need to prove both performance and scalability guarantees. Subsequent challenge problems will further increase in each dimension outlined above. As part of the challenge problem specification, some values for guarantees (e.g., number of users or throughput requirements) will be provided by the T&E team and others should be calculated by FA2 analyses.

Challenge problem specifications will consist of example network traffic in the form of packet captures, source code for all applications and WN channels, and a containerized instantiation of the overall HCS. Proposals should clearly state any additional specific information that is required for their solutions. The first challenge problem specification will be finalized at program kickoff by the T&E team.

PWND² evaluation is focused on validating the guarantees provided by FA2 analyses. T&E will use a simulation framework and empirical test range for HCSs to validate guarantees through a series of measurements of these test environments. First, they will establish baselines and measure based on passive adversary capabilities. Then they will instantiate the challenge problems and conduct measurements with and without adversary actions. Guarantees will be validated through statistical t-tests showing that the mean of the empirical observations is equal to the value of the formal guarantee. For certain types of guarantees PWND² may employ one-tailed t-tests to validate that guarantees are close but do not exceed a particular threshold.

Along with solutions to the challenge problem at each milestone, teams must deliver a technical report containing an analysis of the scalability of their combined FA1 and FA2 approach. This report will demonstrate that their techniques can scale to the challenge problems at the end of the program, ensuring that HCS modeling and analysis can be performed in polynomial time. By the end of the program, solution times should be linear with respect to the size of the WN, and quadratic with respect to the size of the underlying network.

Program Schedule

PWND² is planned as a 30-month single-phase program. The single phase includes both Months 0-6 (Kick Start OT for Prototype) and Months 7-30 (Follow-on OT or Contract award). For budgeting purposes, use February 1, 2025, as a start date for the program.

Figure 2: Program Schedule

The Government will specify the locations for Principal Investigator (PI) meetings and evaluation events during program performance. There will be six (6) PI meetings held at approximately six (6) month intervals. The first PI meeting will be considered program kickoff.

Every PI meeting past the first will coincide with either a demonstration or evaluation event. PI meeting locations are likely to be spread across performer locations, and the proposers should plan to host at least one three-day PI meeting with up to 40 participants over the duration of the program. The goals of the PI meetings are to present new research findings and accomplishments, review plans for the next period, discuss implementation milestones, and resolve any programmatic, budgeting, or logistics issues. In addition to these program-wide events, the Government team will conduct site visits and will hold monthly teleconference meetings with each PI to enhance communications with the Government team. For travel planning and costing, assume six (6) trips during the program per the program schedule shown (Figure 2) alternating between Washington, DC and San Diego, CA, with each trip requiring 3-days and 2-nights.

Deliverables

All performers will be required to provide the following deliverables for Months 1 – 6:

See Stage 1, Attachment S1-3 Kick-Start OT Agreement.

All performers will be required to provide the following deliverables for Months 7 – 30:

Technical Status Reports (quarterly) Financial Reports for Procurement Contracts (Monthly) or Milestone Reports for OTs

(Determined during negotiation of the payment and milestone schedule, Months 7-30) Briefing Slides for PI meetings Software, to include commented source code, usage documentation, build tools, DSL specification (every 6 Months at program milestones), and any resources needed to reproduce program results

Challenge Problem Reports to include FA1 DSL representation of the HCS, FA2 produced guarantees, and scalability analyses (every 6 Months at program milestones)

Final Technical Report

Proposers may expand this list consistent with their proposed solution.

Open-Source Methodology and Software

Intellectual property rights asserted by proposers are highly encouraged to align with opensource 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., Apache, 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 are achieved by providing a robust foundation for future users and/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.

SECTION III: ABSTRACT GUIDELINES

This announcement contains an abstract phase. Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal submission to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out-of-scope proposal; however, submission of an abstract is not required.

Abstract Content: Abstract content and formatting requirements are stated in the Abstract Instructions and Submission Template and the Abstract Summary Slide Template found in the Abstract Attachments (A-1 and A-2). All abstracts submitted in response to this solicitation must comply with the content and formatting requirements stated in the aforementioned attachments.

Use of the Abstract Templates is strongly encouraged in development of abstract submissions.

Information not explicitly requested in this solicitation and the abstract attachments may not be reviewed.

Abstract Submission Requirements:

The Abstract submission deadline is as stated in Section I: Overview Information.

Abstracts must be submitted to the DARPA Broad Agency Announcement Tool (BAAT).

Please visit Proposer Instructions and General Terms and Conditions for specific information regarding submission methods through BAAT. Submissions sent through other mediums, channels, or after the prescribed deadline will not be accepted.

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information on the Abstract cover page. Marking must state, “Proprietary.” Note, “confidential” is not a classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary business information.

Abstract Feedback:

DARPA will review abstracts for conformance; only conforming abstracts will be reviewed and receive feedback.

All conforming abstracts will receive written feedback either encouraging or discouraging a full proposal submission. The Government’s feedback determination will be accompanied by a brief technical analysis which resulted in the feedback response. Feedback will be sent to the administrative and technical points of contact noted in the abstract cover page.

Regardless of DARPA’s response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal.

Without regard to any comments or feedback resulting from the review of an abstract, DARPA will review all conforming full proposals using the published evaluation criteria.

https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/proposer-instructions

SECTION IV: STAGE SUBMISSION OVERVIEW

Stage 1 will require submission of a Stage 1 technical proposal with an applicable basis of estimate6 (BOE). If a Stage 1 technical proposal is selected for potential award, Stage 2 will require submission of a full cost proposal commensurate to the technical solution proposed in Stage 1.

Distribution Statement 2

Stage 1:

Technical Proposal

• Proposal Summary Slide

• Technical and Management Proposal

• Kick-Start Other Transaction (OT) Agreement

• Kick-Start OT Price Proposal

• Basis of Estimate (BOE)

Stage 2:

Cost Proposal

• DARPA Standard Cost Spreadsheet

• Cost Proposal

• Schedule of Milestones and Payments

(Months 7 – 30)

• Representations and Certifications

(Procurement Contract)

Figure 3: Stage Submission Process

SECTION V: PROPOSAL PREPARATION GUIDELINES

Proposal Preparation Requirements: All proposers must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number for their proposal to be found conforming. Proposers must maintain an active registration in SAM.gov with current information at all times during which a proposal is under consideration or have a current award with DARPA. Information on SAM registration is available at SAM.gov.

NOTE: New registration takes an average of 7-10 business days to process in SAM.gov.

Registration requires at a minimum the following information:

SAM UIE number Tax Identification Number

6 Basis of Estimate is defined as a document explaining the logic, calculations, data, and assumptions used to develop the level of effort and resources required to complete the proposed technical solution.

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code. If a proposer does not already have a CAGE code, one will be assigned during the SAM registration process.

Electronic Funds Transfer information (e.g., proposer’s bank account number, routing number, and bank phone or fax number.)

Proposal Content:

This announcement is soliciting Stage 1 technical proposal and price submissions. All proposals submitted in response to this announcement must comply with the content and formatting requirements stated in the Stage 1 Attachments. Proposers are strongly encouraged to use the templates provided; information not explicitly requested in this announcement or the Stage 1 Attachments, may not be evaluated.

NOTE: Stage 1 submissions should state the proposer's preference to receive either an Other Transaction Agreement for Prototype with Priced Milestones or a Procurement Contract (Firm-Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursement or Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF)) for the performance of Months 7-30. In either case, the Government Agreement Officer/Contracting Officer (AO/CO) shall have the sole discretion to select the award instrument, regardless of the instrument preferred. The following websites are incorporated by reference and contain additional information regarding general terms and conditions, and each specific award instrument type.

Procurement Contracts: Proposer Instructions: Procurement Contracts Other Transaction Agreements: Proposer Instructions: Other Transactions

Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Proposal submission deadline is as stated in Section I: Overview Information.

The Stage 1 Attachments constitute a full proposal submission. Please visit Proposer

Instructions and General Terms and Conditions for specific information regarding submission methods through the Broad Agency Announcement Tool (BAAT).

Submissions sent through other mediums, channels, or after the prescribed BAA deadline will be discarded.

Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information on the proposal cover page. Marking must state, “Proprietary.” Note, “Confidential” is not a classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary business information.

https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/procurement-contracts https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/other-transaction-agreements

SECTION VI: EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Evaluation Stages:

1. Stage 1 evaluation: Stage 1 proposals will be evaluated against evaluation criteria 1-3 noted below.

2. Stage 2 evaluations: If Stage 1 results in a proposal selection for potential award, the proposer will be required to submit the Stage 2 Attachments, which will be evaluated against Evaluation Criteria 3: Price or Evaluation Criteria 4: Cost Realism as required by the award type. The separate criteria are distinguished below.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated in stages as described immediately above using the following criteria listed in descending order of importance: Overall Scientific and Technical Merit;

Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission; Price* (Other Transaction awards); and Cost Realism*(for Procurement contracts).

Criteria 1: Overall Scientific and Technical Merit The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete. The proposed technical team has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks.

Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined. The linkage of the technical approach, risk mitigation, costs and deliverables of the prime awardee and all sub awardees through a logical, well structured, and traceable technical plan.

Criteria 2: Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission The potential contributions of the proposed effort bolster the national security technology base and support DARPA’s mission to make pivotal early technology investments that create or prevent technological surprise. The proposed intellectual property restrictions (if any) will not significantly impact the Government’s ability to transition the technology.

Criteria 3: Price* A price evaluation will be conducted to ensure the proposed price is reasonable. The Government may use various price evaluation techniques and methodologies to ensure the proposed price is reasonable. This evaluation could include a comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid for the same or similar scope of research or a comparison of proposed prices to the Government price valuation.

Criteria 4: Cost Realism* The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately reflect the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs are consistent with the proposer's Statement of Work and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach. The costs for the prime proposer and proposed sub awardees are substantiated by the details provided in the proposal (e.g., the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of materials, equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for the estimates). It is expected that the effort will leverage all available relevant prior research to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding.

Proposal Review and Selection Process

It is DARPA’s policy to ensure impartial, equitable, comprehensive proposal evaluations based on the evaluation criteria listed in Section VI and to select the source (sources) whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the PWND2 program objectives.

DARPA will conduct a scientific and technical review of each conforming Stage 1 proposal. For the purposes of this proposal evaluation process, a conforming proposal is defined as follows:

Conforming proposals contain all requirements and fall within the scope detailed in this solicitation.

Proposals that fail to include required information may be deemed non-conforming and may be removed from consideration. Non-conforming submissions may be rejected without further review. A proposal will be deemed non-conforming under this solicitation if the proposal fails to meet one or more of the following solicitation requirements:

o The proposed concept is applicable to the PWND2 program.

o The proposers meet the eligibility requirements.

o The proposal met the submission requirements.

o The proposal met the content and formatting requirements in the attachments.

o The proposer’s concept has not already received funding or been selected for award negotiations for another funding opportunity (whether from DARPA or another Government agency).

Proposers will be notified of non-conforming determinations via email correspondence.

All proposal evaluations will be based solely on the evaluation criteria in Section VI. Upon evaluation against the above proposal evaluation criteria, DARPA will evaluate each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses in order to determine if the proposal is considered selectable or non-selectable.

NOTE: proposals will not be evaluated against each other during the scientific technical review process, but rather evaluated on their own individual merit to determine how well the proposal meets the criteria stated in this solicitation.

For the purpose of this proposal evaluation process, a selectable or non-selectable proposal is defined below. Given the limited funding available for PWND², not all proposals considered “Selectable” may be selected for a potential award.

Selectable: A selectable proposal is one that the Government has evaluated against the proposal evaluation criteria listed in the BAA and the positive aspects outweigh the negative aspects.

Not Selectable: A proposal is considered non-selectable when the Government has evaluated it against the proposal evaluation criteria listed in the BAA and the negative aspects outweigh the positive aspects.

Additional information on how DARPA reviews and evaluates proposals through the Scientific Review Process can be found here: Proposer Instructions: General Terms and Conditions

Proposal Feedback

All proposers will receive electronic correspondence stating a selectability determination.

In accordance with Section I: Overview, this announcement has a 2-Step award process. Upon notification of a proposal being selected for potential award, and subject to the availability of funding, the Government will also communicate the following:

Notice of a full or a partial proposal selection for negotiation of a subsequent award. In either case, selected proposers will be required to submit Stage 2 Attachments which will be provided with the selection notification.

o For awareness, the Stage 2 Attachments may include the following documents:

DARPA Standard Cost Proposal Spreadsheet Proposal Instructions with Cost Template Schedule of Milestones and Payments (Fixed Price Based) Representations and Certifications (Procurement Contract)

A notice of selection to receive award of a Kick-Start OT Agreement under 10 USC § 4022 will be sent to all selected proposers. Upon receipt of this notification letter, selected proposers should be prepared to immediately support the Kick-Start award.

NOTE: DARPA anticipates award of the Kick-Start OT Agreement within 30-business days from notice of selection.

Being asked to submit a proposal does not guarantee that a proposer will receive an award. The Government reserves the right not to make an award.

SECTION VII: AWARD PROCESS

Figure 4: Two-Step Award Process

2-Step Award Process:

Step 1: Upon notification of selection in Stage 1, all selected proposers may receive a Kick- Start Other Transaction (OT) Agreement for Prototype to support Months 1-6 of the PWND2 program.

Kick-Start Agreements will be awarded with pre-established deliverables and milestones that support the first program milestone - delivery of a demonstratable prototype.

DARPA anticipates award of the Kick-Start OT Agreement within 30-business days from notice of selection.

Further, upon selection notification, selected proposers will receive a Stage 2 Attachments to complete the proposal submission process and start Step 2 negotiations.

Step 2: Selected performers may negotiate additional terms and conditions of the Kick-Start OT Agreement, extending the term of the Agreement into Months 7-30 or selected performers may choose to negotiate a Procurement Contract to perform tasks proposed for Months 7-30.

o Selected performers will be required to submit a Stage 2 cost proposal for Months 7-30 aligned to either an OT Agreement with Priced Milestones or a Procurement Contract (Firm-Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursement, or Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee

(CPFF)).

NOTE: In accordance with FAR 16.303-3(a)(3) a contractor must have an adequate cost accounting system to be awarded a Cost Reimbursable, to include CPFF, Procurement Contract.

o Upon submission of a Stage 2 proposal, selected performers should anticipate Step 2 negotiations may take up to 120 calendar days to finalize awards. As such, DARPA anticipates Step 2 awards will be finalized prior to close out of the Kick- Start period of performance at month 6 of the PWND² program.

Award Guidelines

The Government Agreement Officer (AO) reserves the right to negotiate directly with the proposer on the terms and conditions of any resultant award(s) contemplated under this solicitation, including payment terms and will execute the agreement on behalf of the Government. Be advised, only a Government AO has the authority to enter into, or modify, a binding agreement on behalf of the United States Government.

In order to receive an award:

Proposers must be determined to be responsible by the Government AO and must not be suspended or debarred from award by the Federal Government nor be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order and/or law from receiving an award.

Proposers must also register in the prescribed Government invoicing system (Wide Area Workflow: https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/registration/notice.xhtml).

SECTION VIII: SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

This announcement, stated attachments, and websites incorporated by reference constitute the entire solicitation. In the event of a discrepancy between the announcement, to include the Stage 1 Attachments or websites, this announcement shall take precedence.

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs, including both U.S. and non-U.S. sources, 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. 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.

Follow-on Production: The Government reserves the right to negotiate and award follow-on production contracts and transactions to performers who successfully complete the prototype phase of OT awarded under this solicitation, without further competition, per 10. U.S.C. § 4022.

https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/registration/notice.xhtml

As of the time of publication of this solicitation, all proposal submissions are anticipated to be unclassified (i.e., no classified submissions will be accepted) and will not contain controlled unclassified information (CUI).

NOTE: If a proposer anticipates submitting a proposal with CUI, the proposer should first consult the Agency Point of Contact in Section 1, Overview Information prior to submitting a proposal.

If an unclassified submission contains CUI or the suspicion of such, as defined by Executive Order 13556 and 32 CFR Part 2002, the information must be appropriately and conspicuously marked CUI in accordance with DoDI 5200.48. Identification of what is CUI about this DARPA program will be detailed in a Security Classification Guide and will be provided upon request.

Proposers submitting proposals involving the pursuit and protection of DARPA information designated as CUI must have, or be able to acquire prior to contract award, an information system authorized to process CUI information IAW NIST SP 800-171 and DoDI 8582.01.

Further information on Controlled Unclassified Information identification, marking, protecting and control, to include processing on Non-DoD Information Systems, is incorporated herein and can be found at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

Human Subjects Research (HSR): The PWND² program does not anticipate HSR in proposal submissions. Proposers that anticipate involving human subjects or animals in the proposed research should contact the Agency Contact prior to submitting a proposal to explain why HSR is necessary to successfully complete the proposed research objectives. Proposers who do anticipate proposing HSR must comply with the approval procedures detailed at Human Subjects and Animal Subjects Research, to include providing the information specified therein.

Organization Conflict of Information (OCI): Proposers, through submission of a proposal, are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to a potential OCI involving the proposer, the proposer’s organization and/or any proposed team member (proposed sub awardee). Along with the disclosure, the proposer shall submit a mitigation plan, which is a description of the action the performer has taken to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the stated OCI. The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the OCI mitigation plan. See Stage 1 Attachment S1-1, Proposal Instructions with Technical and Management Proposal Template, Appendix A.

If the Government determines a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support; 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.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers, and Government entities interested in participating in the PWND2 program http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/humanresearch https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/humanresearch or proposing to this BAA should first contact the Agency Point of Contact (POC) listed in the Overview section prior to the Abstract / Proposal due date to discuss eligibility. Complete information regarding eligibility can be found at Proposer Instructions and General Terms and Conditions.

As of the date of publication of this solicitation, the Government expects that program goals as described herein may be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research and does not anticipate applying publication restrictions of any kind to individual awards for fundamental research that may result from this solicitation. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, the Government is not prohibited from considering and selecting research proposals that, while perhaps not qualifying as fundamental research under the foregoing definition, still meet the solicitation criteria for submissions. If proposals are selected for award that offer other than a fundamental research solution, the Government will either work with the proposer to modify the proposed statement of work to bring the research back into line with fundamental research or else the proposer will agree to restrictions in order to receive an award. For additional information on fundamental research, please visit Proposer Instructions and General Terms and Conditions.

Additional Resources o The APEX Accelerators program, formerly known as the Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP), focuses on building a strong, sustainable, and resilient U.S. supply chain by assisting a wide range of businesses that pursue and perform under contracts with the DoD, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and with government prime contractors. See https://www.apexaccelerators.us/ for more information. APEX Accelerators helps businesses:

Complete registration with a wide range of databases necessary for them to participate in the government marketplace (e.g., SAM).

Identify which agencies and offices may need their products or services and how connect with buying agencies and offices.

Determine whether they are ready for government opportunities and how to position themselves to succeed.

Navigate solicitations and potential funding opportunities.

Receive notifications of government contract opportunities on a regular basis.

Network with buying officers, prime contractors, and other businesses.

Resolve performance issues and prepare for audit, only if the service is needed, after receiving an award.

o Project Spectrum is a nonprofit effort funded by the DoD Office of Small Business Programs to help educate the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) on compliance. Project Spectrum is vendor-neutral and available to assist businesses with their cybersecurity and compliance needs. Their mission is to improve cybersecurity readiness, resilience, and compliance for small/medium-sized businesses and the federal manufacturing supply chain. Project Spectrum events and programs will enhance awareness of cybersecurity threats within the manufacturing, research, and https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management development, as well as knowledge-based services sectors of the industrial base.

Project Spectrum will leverage strategic partnerships within and outside of the DoD to accelerate the overall cybersecurity compliance of the DIB.

www.Projectspectrum.io is a web portal that will provide resources such as individualize dashboards, a marketplace, and Pilot Program to help accelerate cybersecurity compliance.

o DARPAConnect offers free resources to potential performers to help them navigate DARPA, including “Understanding DARPA Award Vehicles and Solicitations,” “Making the Most of Proposers Days,” and “Tips for DARPA Proposal Success.”

Join DARPAConnect at www.DARPAConnect.us to leverage on-demand learning and networking resources.

DARPA has streamlined our Broad Agency Announcements and is interested in your feedback on this new format. Please send any comments to DARPAsolicitations@darpa.mil http://www.projectspectrum.io/ http://www.darpaconnect.us/ mailto:DARPAsolicitations@darpa.mil