AMENDMENT_4.pdf

HSHQDC-13-R-B0001 BAA13-101

Exploratory Research in

Preventing Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism

Broad Agency Announcement No.

BAA13-101

for

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

(DNDO)

Transformational and Applied Research Directorate

(TARD)

Table of Contents 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Global Nuclear Detection Architecture

1.3 Technical Nuclear Forensics

1.4 Strategic Approach

1.5 Scope and Funding

2 Exploratory Research Topics

2.1 RTA-01: New or Greatly Improved Semiconductors for Radiation Sensing

2.2 RTA-02: Approaches for Very Low Cost Scintillator Detector Materials of Moderate to Very Good Energy Resolution Including Commercial Scale Production Techniques

2.3 RTA-03: Improved Solid-State Readout Devices for Scintillators

2.4 RTA-04: Integrated Threat Detection with Emphasis on Data Fusion, Informatics and/or Novel Signal/Signature Exploitation

2.5 RTA-05: Highly Mobile Radiographic Imaging System with Dose Mitigation

2.6 RTA-06: Enabling Technologies to Support Rail Cargo Scanning

2.7 RTA-07: Improved Nuclear Forensics Laboratory Analytical Methods

3 Management Approach

3.1 Program Milestone Structure

3.2 Deliverables and Review Cycles

4 Procurement Overview

4.1 Eligible Offerors

4.2 Review and Evaluation Process

4.3 Award Instruments

4.4 Award Schedule

4.5 Period of Performance

5 Proposal Preparation and Content

5.1 White Paper Preparation: Format and Content

5.2 Full Proposal Preparation: Format and Content

6 Post selection requirements

7 Evaluation Criteria

7.1 Criterion I: Transformational Impact

7.2 Criterion II: Technical Approach

7.3 Criterion III: Capability and Experience

7.4 Criterion IV: Management Approach

7.5 Criterion V: Cost/Price Realism and Reasonableness

8 Instructions to Offerors

8.1 Submission of White Papers and Full Proposals

8.2 Questions

8.3 Central Contractor Registration:

8.4 Representations and Certifications

8.5 Safety Act

8.6 Security/Classified White Papers/Full Proposals

9 Attachments

9.1 White Paper/Full Proposal Cover Sheet

9.2 Quad Chart Template

1 INTRODUCTION

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Procurement Operations (OPO) is soliciting proposals for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) under this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for Exploratory Research (ER) that directly supports the DNDO mission. This BAA solicits first white papers and then full proposals in the area of Preventing Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism that may lead to a dramatic improvement in national capabilities in nuclear/radiological detection and forensics.

For this BAA, the Government encourages full proposals from the following types of organizations which could serve as the prime contractor: private industry, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations. Prohibited from serving as prime but encouraged to participate as sub-contractors for this BAA are National Laboratories, Federal Government Laboratories, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), Federal Government Activities, Federal Agencies, and Government-Sponsored University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs).

This BAA is issued under paragraphs 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which provides for the competitive selection, as stated in Section 6, of basic and applied research and/or development not related to a specific system or hardware. Full proposals submitted in response to this BAA that are selected for award are considered to be the result of full and open competition and in compliance with the provision of Public Law 98-369, “The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984” and subsequent amendments.

The award schedule for this BAA is as follows:

DATE EVENT

28 DEC 2012

FRIDAY

Pre-solicitation Notice Posted

16 JAN 2013

WEDNESDAY

BAA Solicitation Posted and Open for White Paper Submission

23 JAN 2013

WEDNESDAY

Questions Submission Deadline for White Papers, 12:00 PM ET (Noon)

29 JAN 2013

TUESDAY

DNDO: Responses Posted to Questions for White Papers

20 FEB 2013

WEDNESDAY

White Papers Submission Deadline, 4:00 PM ET

22 APRIL 2013

MONDAY

DNDO: Responses for White Papers Provided to Offerors and Open for Full Proposal Submission

3 MAY 2013 Questions Submission Deadline for Full Proposals, 12:00

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Department of Homeland Security has been tasked to ensure that the United States remains safe from the illicit importation, development, or procurement of a nuclear or radiological device. In recognition of the catastrophic risk posed by the use of a nuclear weapon within the United States, DHS has integrated all nuclear detection research, development, testing, evaluation, acquisition, and operational support into a single office: the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. DNDO develops the global nuclear detection architecture; conducts research and development; and acquires and supports the deployment of domestic nuclear detection and forensics systems.

The Transformational and Applied Research Directorate (TARD) was established within DNDO to conduct, support, coordinate, and encourage an aggressive transformational program of Research and Development (R&D) that will dramatically improve national capabilities to detect and report attempts to import or transport a nuclear device, Special Nuclear Material (SNM), or radiological materials outside of regulatory control. Priority is placed on R&D that has the greatest potential for addressing needs or weaknesses in the global nuclear detection architecture (GNDA). TARD will undertake those efforts that dramatically improve performance and reduce technical, performance, and/or cost risks in achieving DNDO objectives by bringing innovative new concepts to a Proof-of-Concept (PoC) demonstration before transitioning them to a advanced technology demonstration phase.

DNDO coordinates and consults with other Government agencies (intra-DHS, Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DoD), etc.) to reduce duplication of effort, leverage related R&D efforts, and encourage collaboration across the R&D community.

1.2 GLOBAL NUCLEAR DETECTION ARCHITECTURE

The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA) is a worldwide network of sensors, telecommunications, and personnel, with the supporting information exchanges, programs, and protocols that serve to detect, analyze, and report on nuclear and radiological materials that are out of regulatory control. The term “out of regulatory control” refers to materials that are being imported, possessed, stored, transported, developed, or used without authorization by the appropriate regulatory authority, either inadvertently or deliberately.

Furthermore, the GNDA:

• is global in that it includes both U.S. systems and those of other countries, as well as the sharing of information among those systems;

FRIDAY PM (noon) ET

6 MAY 2013

MONDAY

DNDO: Responses for Full Proposal Questions Provided to Offerors

3 JUNE 2013

MONDAY

Full Proposals Submission Deadline, 12:00 PM ET (Noon)

BY AUGUST 2013 Anticipated Award Date

• targets illicit trafficking and unauthorized use of nuclear and radiological material to help protect against both nuclear and radiological terrorism;

• detects by way of passive and active detection equipment as well as by non-technical means, such as ongoing law-enforcement information or observations, public and other government departments and agencies’ observations, or reporting of suspicious behavior;

and

• represents the architecture or structure which reflects the fully coordinated approach to detect, analyze, and promptly report nuclear and radiological threats.

DNDO has identified a number of significant, long-term technical challenges in the deployment and operation of an effective architecture. Many of these challenges cannot be easily overcome with existing or near-term technology developments. They include:

• Cost effective equipment with sufficient technical performance to ensure widespread deployment;

• Enhanced wide area search capabilities in a variety of scenarios to include urban and highly cluttered environments;

• Capabilities that we can deploy along challenging GNDA pathways, to include scanning of general aviation and small maritime vessels, and searching for nuclear threats along our borders, between ports of entry; and finally,

• We must be able to detect nuclear threats, even when they are heavily shielded.

Technological solutions to these challenges and many others will require sustained, long-term support to develop the fundamental scientific and technological foundation required to make such detection capabilities effective and affordable. Major advances in capabilities that support the GNDA can be achieved through focused research in areas ranging from the sensor materials, front-end-electronics, advanced algorithms, modeling, sensor fusion and other research supporting development of passive, active, and ancillary detection systems. Advances in one or more of these areas in-turn can provide new and improved capabilities for screening, scanning or searching for nuclear and radiological materials of concern, improved identification of these materials and reduced or simplified operations for end-users. The many challenges in developing the GNDA illustrate the need for a well-supported transformational and applied research program to fully explore the limits and potential of physics, engineering, mathematics and computation to counter the radiological and nuclear threat.

1.3 TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS

Technical nuclear forensics (TNF) is the collection, analysis, and evaluation of pre-detonation (intact) and post-detonation (exploded) radiological or nuclear (RN) materials, devices, and debris, as well as the immediate effects created by a nuclear detonation. Additional background on nuclear forensics can be found at: “Nuclear Forensic Analysis, by Kenton J. Moody, Ian D.

Hutcheon, and Patrick M. Grant (Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2005), and the report, Nuclear Forensics: Role, State of the Art, and Program Needs, Joint Working Group of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2008).

The existence of credible TNF capabilities, in conjunction with robust intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, and the stated policy of the U.S. Government to hold all parties accountable in the event of an incident, may help governments to take necessary measures to secure their RN materials or weapons to help obviate their unwitting transfer to third parties through loss of control

One of DNDO’s responsibilities in TNF is to develop, sustain, and advance the nation’s technical capabilities for the pre-detonation (i.e., interdicted) nuclear materials forensic mission. DNDO is currently involved in advancing the state-of-the-art in TNF in the following areas:

• Improving the performance of analytical techniques, as by reducing uncertainties (e.g., increasing instrument efficiencies and sensitivities and lowering thresholds for detection of species in relatively low concentrations).

• Developing additional discriminating methods, including those that probe material morphology and heterogeneities and species entrained in surface monolayers, so as to exploit clues contained in local variations of material characteristics, in analyses that go beyond gross average values.

These areas of focus, and others, translate to an overarching technical desire for improved measurement precision and quality through development of analytical tools that are more discriminating, more accurate, timelier, and/or more robust than those now used in nuclear forensics. They also support a grand challenge to model the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including relevant variations, for nuclear forensic purposes. To that end, this solicitation is seeking proposals under Topic 7 (see Section 2 below) to research nuclear forensics laboratory analytical methods and identification of additional discriminating characteristics.

1.4 STRATEGIC APPROACH

The DNDO approach to transformational and applied research is intended to stimulate the R&D community in academia, private industry, non-profit organizations, FFRDCs, UARCs and other Federally-funded Government activities. To this end, the overall TARD research and development program is organized into four primary initiatives: Exploratory Research, Near Term Research Projects, an Academic Research Initiative, and Small Business Innovation Research. A description of each of these follows:

• Exploratory Research (ER) – this BAA is intended to transform the basic building blocks of nuclear detection technology and supporting fields. Innovative concepts that successfully complete the exploratory R&D phases are typically brought to a Proof-of- Concept (PoC) demonstration – a minimal, but functional, realization of the technology for testing and demonstration, typically in a laboratory environment. DNDO anticipates releasing future Exploratory Research BAAs on an annual schedule.

The present BAA covers only Exploratory Research. However, the following initiatives may be announced as separate solicitation announcements. The following is for informational purposes only. Full proposals for the Advanced Technology Demonstration, the Academic Research Initiative and Small Business Innovation Research must await the issuance of their respective solicitation announcements. Solicitation announcements for the following initiatives are anticipated sometime in FY13 or FY14 if not already issued.

• Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs) are the final stage of development and evaluation of proven (PoC) technology in the DNDO Transformational Research program. The purpose of an ATD is to develop a mature prototype capable of providing reliable performance measurements in a challenging and realistic, albeit simulated, operational environment, replicating the concept of operations and employment relevant to the technologies intended use. This data will be analyzed to formulate recommendations on technology maturity, support a cost-benefit analysis of the technology and aid in determining next-steps in development to include potential commercial system development and acquisition.

• The Academic Research Initiative (ARI) is intended to support a research community in nuclear detection and related sciences within academia that will conduct fundamental and basic research in nuclear detection and related fields. The ARI is also intended to address the human capital crisis in scientists and engineers who can support the next generation of researchers in these fields. These research grants cover a wide breadth of research activities, emphasize collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches to research, and encourage robust student engagement at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

Successful ARI research endeavors may support exploratory research efforts and small business research projects.

• Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program supports technological innovation that can lead to rapid prototyping and commercialization of concepts by small businesses, to include socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.

1.5 SCOPE AND FUNDING

DNDO anticipates making multiple awards under this BAA. DNDO reserves the right to fund all, parts, or none of the full proposals received and will fund awards by phases as options under this BAA. Total funding for this BAA in FY13 is anticipated to be $5M with additional funding potentially available in later years. The actual number and size of awards under this BAA will be at the discretion of DNDO, based on the criteria listed in Section 7, and the availability of funds.

2 EXPLORATORY RESEARCH TOPICS

DNDO is interested in technologies or methodologies that can dramatically improve the national capability to detect and report attempts to import or transport a nuclear device, SNM, or radiological material intended for illicit use. For this BAA, the technologies and methodologies are divided into seven Research Topic Areas (RTA) as follows:

o RTA-01: New or Greatly Improved Semiconductors for Radiation Sensing o RTA-02: Approaches for Very Low Cost Scintillator Detector Materials of Moderate to

Very Good Energy Resolution Including Commercial Scale Production Techniques o RTA-03: Improved Solid-State Readout Devices for Scintillators o RTA-04: Integrated Threat Detection with Emphasis on Data Fusion, Informatics and/or

Novel Signal/Signature Exploitation o RTA-05: Highly Mobile Radiographic Imaging System with Dose Mitigation o RTA-06: Enabling Technologies to Support Rail Cargo Scanning o RTA-07: Nuclear Forensics Laboratory Analytical Methods

Each RTA description below contains a summary of the research area of interest with examples of intended research and overall performance objectives, as appropriate. Offerors must propose to a specific RTA. It is anticipated that the topics will change in future exploratory research solicitations, which are scheduled to be released on a yearly basis. Offerors must emphasize the extent to which their proposal provides transformational capability in support of the DNDO mission and compare to current solutions, as applicable.

DNDO prefers comprehensive programs that may include elements of scientific theory, modeling, simulation, experimental investigations, algorithm development, and other elements of applied research and development. All exploratory research efforts should lead to a formal proof-of-concept demonstration. Note that the intended scope of exploratory research excludes large scale, integrated systems development efforts that are the focus of advanced technology demonstrations and other developmental programs and projects.

Proposals should provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1), starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading to a PoC prototype demonstration in Phase V. A program can enter into a phase later than feasibility if the proposal can show that feasibility has already been demonstrated. Supporting documentation, data, simulations, analytic calculations, and references need to be provided to support the proposed approach. For this BAA, DNDO is only considering offerings addressing solutions for areas described in the following Research Topic Areas (RTA):

2.1 RTA-01: NEW OR GREATLY IMPROVED SEMICONDUCTORS

FOR RADIATION SENSING

This topic is encouraging proposals for room-temperature operation materials for detection of gamma-rays or neutrons, but not both. Materials could be either 1) novel semiconductor materials with little or no prior experimental study, but which can be expected to show high performance based on analysis, data, and/or theory, or 2) semiconductor materials revisited from the past which, based on new analysis, data, theory, and/or new techniques, can now be expected to result in high performance in large volumes (>8 cm3) with economical production methods (significantly less than $500/cm3). Justification for ease of growth and cost must be provided.

High performance would require high energy resolution, which in turn would require high uniformity, high resistivity, and high charge carrier transport coefficients of mobility and lifetime (mu-tau). High performance would also include high efficiency and high stopping power, which usually in turn require, for gammas, high density, high Z (atomic number), and adequate thickness to provide effective sensitivity for photons up to 2.6 MeV. A general benchmark against which to compare detection performance would be Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride (CZT) for gamma-rays and Helium-3 (He-3) for neutrons. An objective for energy resolution is equal to or less than 1.0% at 662 keV. Materials for thermal neutron detection should be capable of reliably discriminating photons from neutrons in the presence of intense gamma fields.

The material should also demonstrate other properties suitable for use in radiation sensors, to include 1) mechanical ruggedness, 2) environmental ruggedness, 3) safety and hazardous materials considerations, 4) complexity of associated circuitry, 5) size of supporting hardware and electronics, and 6) availability of sufficiently pure raw materials. For gamma-ray detection, CZT again provides a suitable benchmark for comparing these other properties. For neutron detection, comparisons should be made with He-3 tubes with respect to these properties.

This topic area is looking for CZT alternatives and is not soliciting work on CZT per se.

In Phase I, the Offeror proposing new materials would demonstrate, for a gamma sensitive material, growth of at least one crystal >1 cm3 with an energy resolution at 662 keV equal to or better than 3.0%, a mu-tau equal to or better than 2x10-3 cm2/V, and a resistivity of 1010 ohm-cm or higher. In Phase I, the Offeror proposing new materials would demonstrate, for a neutron sensitive material, growth of at least one crystal capable of producing a peak for alphas or neutrons, a high resistivity commensurate for low leakage for detector operation, and potential for high gamma rejection/discrimination.

The proposal should provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.1): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading to a PoC prototype demonstration in Phase II. The program may begin in a phase later than feasibility if the proposal can show that feasibility has already been demonstrated.

2.2 RTA-02: APPROACHES FOR VERY LOW COST SCINTILLATOR

DETECTOR MATERIALS OF MODERATE TO VERY GOOD

ENERGY RESOLUTION INCLUDING COMMERCIAL SCALE

PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES

Proposed research must emphasize approaches to greatly decrease the costs of scintillation materials for gamma radiation detection. These approaches can be applied to either established materials or new materials, but feasibility must be demonstrated during the initial phase of the research. Some sacrifice in performance (e.g., degradation in energy resolution) may be acceptable to accommodate a significant decrease in associated production cost.

Proposals seeking transformational advances in performance-to-cost ratios fall into different categories. Two of those categories are identified in the following sub-topic areas although other categories may also be considered. Offerors should specify which of the below sub-topic areas they are proposing to or note “other” if none applies and specify the category their proposal would fall under.

Sub-Topic Area 1: Large volume (e.g, 4” x 4” x 16” logs) scintillator materials with performance of “moderate” energy resolution (e.g., NaI at 6% at 662 keV) materials but at the cost of traditional commercially available plastics such as PVT (which is roughly < $0.20/cm3 based on radiation portal monitor sizes).

Sub-Topic Area 2: Hand-held detector size (2” x 2” right cylinders) scintillator materials with good energy resolution (3%) at the cost of low energy resolution single crystals such as NaI (which is approximately $7/cm3).

Material property goals also include high density (>5 gm/cm3) and high effective Z (>50).

Detector materials that also support neutron detection (thermal or fast or both), and that can readily reject or discriminate gamma ray interactions, are also of interest.

Approaches can include but are not limited to the following:

1) New or improved processes of fabrication of present size-scale crystals/detector sensors;

2) Scale-up in size of crystal growth/detector sensor fabrication size (growth of larger boules for crystals is one approach to achieving higher yield and lower cost per growth run); and

3) New or improved material choices.

The following are examples which are intended neither to prioritize specific approaches nor exclude other unmentioned approaches. As to the first two approaches, examples include leveraging techniques, processes and systems employed commonly for large, high quality crystal growth in the laser and non-linear optics industries, electronics industries, power switching industries, silicon photovoltaics industries, or IR detection industries. While this topic area is for scintillators only, another example comes from recent semiconductor accomplishments wherein advances in continuous dynamic control of furnace environments to compensate for continuously changing thermal and fluid conditions at the melt-solid interface have led to advances in size scale-up of boules. This could include pre-programming, feedback, feed-forward, and proportional /integral/differential (PID) controls. The first two approaches can also include, for example, techniques and processes such as close coupling of advanced modeling/simulation with experiments in multi-zone furnaces. As to the third approach, one example of new materials is the large family of crystals which constitute the elpasolites. This family includes crystals with simple crystalline structure with good energy resolution that could potentially lead to easy growth of high quality crystals, thus offering high yield and low cost.

Supporting documentation, data, simulations, analytic calculations, and references in the proposal are required to support the proposed approach. Proposal must clearly describe the baseline/current state-of-the-art performance and cost and how performance and cost objectives will be met through the proposed approach, with supporting information for each aspect and each step of the path forward. Cost analysis should include raw materials cost, synthesis, purification, growth, and device fabrication and encompass unknowns or uncertainties for these factors.

Description of general activities is not adequate. Instead, the specific approach with rationale must be included in proposal.

The proposal must provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.2): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading to a PoC prototype demonstration in Phase V. The program may begin in a phase later than

2.3 RTA-03: IMPROVED SOLID-STATE READOUT DEVICES FOR

SCINTILLATORS

Proposals are sought to explore advanced concepts in photon conversion from scintillation light from neutron and gamma-sensitive scintillation materials (e.g. elpasolites, II-VII compounds), with a pathway for development of new devices utilizing the latest developments in solid-state, MicroElectroMechanical Systems (MEMS), or nano-technology. We are specifically seeking proposals to explore technologies that will optimize light collection, particularly in the violet or shorter wavelength region, reduce dark current and/or dark count rates (DCR) and associated device noise, and allow for improved performance with scintillators of longer decay times (up to several microseconds). Proposals that also include methods to improve low power, front-end signal processing from light detected from these solid state devices to improve achievable energy resolution and gain stability, compensate for environmental effects (e.g. temperature), and support high count rates with reduced dead time are of interest. Proposals should also consider how the proposed approach will optimize light collection from scintillator materials to include means of effective optical coupling. Specific desired performance objectives include the following:

• Minimum effective area: > 5 cm2 (>1 in2)

• For pixelated devices: Fill factors > 70%

• Spectral response from 300 to 550 nm

• Photon detection efficiency in this range > 50%

• Dark current: < 1 nA (or equivalent DCR)

• Pulse Timing: < 1 ns

Device technology should be aimed at room-temperature operation with overall performance (e.g., energy resolution of combined read-out device and scintillator crystal) reaching that currently achievable with the highest quantum efficiency traditional photomultiplier tubes.

Proposed approaches should clearly indicate current state-of-the-art and how the proposed approach will achieve or exceed this performance, particularly in devices of large effective area.

The proposal must provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.2): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading

2.4 RTA-04: INTEGRATED THREAT DETECTION WITH EMPHASIS

ON DATA FUSION, INFORMATICS AND/OR NOVEL

SIGNAL/SIGNATURE EXPLOITATION

Proposed research should explore integrated approaches to detect special nuclear materials (SNM), or the shielding that may be around these materials, in cars, containers or other conveyances either during routine surveillance or during intelligence directed surge efforts.

Approaches should explore how conventional threat detection (using radiological or radiographic information) can be improved through data fusion and the use of signals or signatures that may be complimentary or orthogonal to conventional sensing. Examples are approaches that enhance detection through multi-source data fusion and information analyses including the utilization of Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Examples of novel signal/signatures include thermal/infrared imaging, radar signatures, electro-optical detection, or acoustics. Proposed approaches should clearly indicate current state-of-the-art performance and what performance improvements could be achieved in a realized concept, and be specific to enhancing the detection of nuclear materials or the shielding around those materials.

Proposed approaches, when fully implemented, must be highly deployable for surge operations (i.e. mobile, transportable) and must be able to operate in an urban environment with minimal environmental or safety issues. Approaches that do not use ionizing radiation are preferred.

However, approaches that use ionizing radiation will be considered as long as the dose is less than 10 micro-rem per scan.

The proposal must provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.2): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading

2.5 RTA-05: HIGHLY MOBILE RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING SYSTEM

WITH DOSE MITIGATION

Highly mobile radiographic imaging systems or component technologies are sought to enhance nuclear and radiological threat detection in strategic surge situations. Current x-ray scanning systems utilize x-ray fan beams that apply the same dose to all areas of the object being scanned, including areas that do not need high dose to penetrate. These x-rays are typically created through high energy electron Bremsstrahlung interactions with a target resulting in a large flux of low energy x-rays that substantially increase the dose and do not add to the image quality. The x-ray fan beam and the Bremsstrahlung energy distribution require the system to have substantial shielding and a large system footprint, hindering mobility. Potential areas of research include:

• Rastering narrow cone beam with automatic dose adjustment based on penetration.

• Mono-chromatic or near mono-chromatic x-ray or gamma-ray sources.

Proposals may address entire systems or enabling component technology such as new photon source development. Although the proposal need not address an entire system design, an idealized system will be described to help guide the research. The system must provide image analysis tools to facilitate an operator detecting nuclear and/or shielding material hidden in the object. A fully automated detection algorithm is desired but not required. The system must have a minimal exclusion zone, be highly mobile, have minimal set-up time, be capable of transit through and operation within urban environments, and be capable of imaging an object as large as a truck. The system must calculate and provide a variable dose at each object location so that energy and/or intensity of the photon beam is the minimum required to create a meaningful image at that location. The system should penetrate at least 40 cm of steel and should have an imaging resolution of 1.0 cm or better (see ANSI N42.46 for details). The system may have a variable scan speed; however, it should be able to penetrate 20 cm of steel at a rate of 80 cm per second.

The proposal must provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.2): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading

2.6 RTA-06: ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPORT RAIL

CARGO SCANNING

This topic seeks specific component and/or enabling technology that could support effective and safe radiographic scanning of rail cargo. Proposed techniques and technologies should describe how the approach can successfully support radiographic/active interrogation of rail cargo under the following conditions: scan rates of 8 to 24 km/h, scan lengths over one kilometer, and a penetration depth of 90 cm of steel (see ANSI N42.46 for details). Proposed techniques/technologies, if successfully demonstrated, should be compatible with envisioned rail operating environments, to include typical safe separation distances between scanning/screening technologies and rail cars. Other considerations/factors include sources that avoid neutron production within both the source and scanned environment, that limit dose in an automated fashion while still providing sufficient contrast, that limit exclusion zones for safe operation and that enable effective Z determination of both high and low Z objects. Proposed approaches should also enable clearing empty or empty with dunnage freight cars.

The proposal must provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.2): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading

2.7 RTA-07: IMPROVED NUCLEAR FORENSICS LABORATORY

ANALYTICAL METHODS

This topic is interested in advancements in separations or analyses of nuclear or radioactive materials that result in improvements in the speed, accuracy, and precision of determining the physical, chemical, radiological, micro-structural and/or morphological qualities of materials.

Specifically, we are seeking improvements in the quantification of micro-structural and morphology measurements of bulk uranium and plutonium in oxide and metal form.

Basic studies are also needed to improve our understanding of how relevant stages of the nuclear fuel cycle create, persist, or modify discriminating material characteristics in the metal or oxide forms of uranium or plutonium. Activities should focus on identifying discriminating material characteristics (physical, chemical, isotopic) that help assess the recent process history and provenance of bulk uranium and plutonium materials produced in the enrichment, conversion to oxides, and conversion to metal stages of the nuclear fuel cycle; and developing simulations that predict material characteristics from parameterized processes.

Proposals must provide a phased technical approach (see Section 3.1.2): starting with a feasibility demonstration and evaluation in Phase I to address all critical technical issues; leading

3 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

3.1 PROGRAM MILESTONE STRUCTURE

If not already dictated in the topic descriptions, all Offerors should choose one of the two research and development approaches detailed below. These two approaches are: 1) General Research approach, or 2) Applied Development Leading to Proof-of-Concept Demonstration approach. If the Offeror chooses to propose a management plan that does not follow the phased approaches described herein, they must provide a justification for their own approach, including a discussion of the benefits to the Government of their approach.

Regardless of the approach chosen, all full proposals must be submitted with a detailed master plan and schedule describing the phases of execution to successfully achieve research objectives and must provide costing information for each phase corresponding to the proposed research structure. Selection for award constitutes commitment of funding for the initial phase, while funding for the subsequent phases will depend on the performance of the preceding phase and availability of funds. Be advised that although up to five phases may be proposed for each approach, previous experience indicates most selected efforts have an actual period of performance from one to three years.

The two approaches are as follows:

3.1.1 General Research:

Full proposals dealing with the basic research of physical properties, such as the search for better detection materials or fabrication techniques, shall propose the following phased approach:

• Phase I: Conduct research and development needed to demonstrate the proof-of-principle or feasibility of a hypothesis, theory or premise with focus on those aspects that involve the greatest scientific or technological risk. These efforts will lead to a Feasibility Evaluation Review (FER). Phase I efforts will generally be no longer than 6-9 months, and represent no more than one quarter of the full intended effort. Phase 1 efforts longer than 9 months require justification. Generally, funding for phase I efforts are limited, and should be less than $300K.

• Phase II – IV: Following a successful FER, succeeding phases will be negotiated based on research results of phase I, and a proposed master plan and schedule that describes specific accomplishments to be achieved by phase, with the ultimate goal to demonstrate a scalable solution to a given technical challenge or capability gap.

3.1.2 Applied Development Leading to Proof-of-Concept Demonstration:

Proposals that lead to a Proof-of-Concept (PoC) prototype demonstration with final testing and demonstration (T&D) shall follow the phased approach below. Projects that were previously funded by the Government or other funding source may enter at an advanced Phase provided that justification is included in the proposal.

• Phase I: Conduct necessary research and development focused on addressing all critical scientific and technical issues and risks, leading to a conceptual design and concluding in a Feasibility Evaluation Review (FER) and report. Phase I efforts will generally be no longer than 6 – 9 months, and represent no more than one quarter of the full intended effort. However, any duration longer than 9 months would require full justification.

Generally, funding for phase I efforts are limited, and should be less than $300K.

• Phase II: Following a successful FER, conduct the necessary research and development

(experiments, modeling, analysis, and trade studies) to validate the final PoC prototype design choice, culminating in a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and report;

• Phase III: Following a successful PDR, conduct the necessary engineering and development to present a Critical Design Review (CDR) and report;

• Phase IV: Following a successful CDR, proceed to develop, fabricate, and assemble a prototype component, device, or algorithm, culminating in a Test Readiness Review (TRR) and report. Submit T&D plan for the PoC demonstration for DNDO approval;

and

• Phase V: With participation of DNDO, execute the T&D plan and generate a comprehensive final report for the entire effort.

3.2 DELIVERABLES AND REVIEW CYCLES

The number and types of reviews and deliverables will be specified in the award document, but is anticipated to include the reports and reviews described in this section. The reports shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the award document and mutually agreed on before award. A Final Report that summarizes the project and tasks will be required at the conclusion of the performance period for the award. All reports, briefings, and other documents described below shall be electronically submitted to both the DNDO Program Manager (PM) and either the DHS Contracting Officer or Grants Officer, as appropriate.

The following reports are anticipated in managing funded efforts:

3.2.1 Project Plan, Milestones and Schedule

The project plan includes a task and event-driven plan that documents the significant activities and accomplishments necessary to complete the each phase of the project, with greatest detail provided for the initial phase of the effort. The plan should include major milestones for each phase that can be used to assess research progress, and potentially as go/no-go criteria for latter phases of the effort. . The plan also includes a detailed spend plan for all tasks necessary to complete the work. The project plan, milestones and schedule should be delivered by the first quarterly performance review (below) following contract award and should be updated at each subsequent quarterly performance review.

3.2.2 Quad Chart and Project White Papers or Summaries

Quad charts are one page documents that provide a very concise summary of the overall effort and are generally updated annually or when significant changes occur within an effort. The quad chart should include a picture, graphic or artist’s conception of the effort in the top left, a summary of technical approach and risks in the bottom left, a summary of relevance and goals on the top right, and a summary of schedule, budget and team in the bottom right. A template will be provided. The project summaries are one or two page narratives that are usually used to communicate the nature, scope and impact of a research effort to persons or audiences internal or external to DNDO. Specific templates will be provided for any required white paper or project summary.

3.2.3 Monthly Progress Report (MR)

Brief narrative reports shall be submitted within two weeks after the last day of each month.

These reports will include:

• A summary of the previous month’s activity,

• Progress achieved against planned goals and milestones,

• A summary of technical challenges and risks, and risk mitigation strategies (as necessary)

• Details of research planned for the next month,

• An account of all funds expended by task to date, and

• Any additional information required by the DNDO Program Manager.

Monthly reports generally should follow a standardized template format that will be provided by

DNDO.

3.2.4 Performance Reviews

Performance Reviews (PRs) will be held every three to six months or as needed depending on the project risk and duration. A kickoff meeting will take the place of the initial PR, and shall be held within the first three (3) months after contract or grant award. The PR briefing is due one week prior to the PR, for which a suggested presentation outline will be provided by DNDO. A PR briefing will be comprehensive in nature and must include, where appropriate:

• Review of the prior quarter’s activity,

• Review of the overall technical progress,

• A summary of technical challenges and risks, and risk mitigation strategies,

• A comprehensive account of all funds expended by task to date,

• Explicit plans for the next quarter including an updated Gantt chart for the current phase, and

• Any additional information required by the DNDO Program Manager.

Meeting minutes shall be generated within one week after the PR. The PR does not replace the monthly progress report, unless agreed upon in advance with the DNDO Program Manager.

3.2.5 End of Phase Performance Evaluation & Report

Each phase concludes with submission of an End of Phase Report, and may also include a performance evaluation in the case of research following the phased structure in 3.1.2. If a performance evaluation is required, the briefing material is due one week prior to the evaluation.

The performance evaluation will be the basis for determining continued funding for the follow-on phase. The End of Phase Report does not replace the monthly technical report. The evaluation must include, where appropriate:

• Technical progress achieved against goals,

• A summary of technical challenges and risks, and risk mitigation strategies,

• A comprehensive account of all funds by program, project, and tasks expended during the phase along with a comparison of these figures with projections from the start of the contract,

• If follow on work is proposed, updates as required to the IMP and IMS, statement of work (SOW) and cost breakdown for the next phase,

• Lessons learned and their impact on future R&D, and

• Any additional information required by the DNDO Program Manager.

The End of Phase Report and meeting minutes are due two weeks after the evaluation or end of phase, whichever is soonest, and it should address issues raised during the evaluation.

3.2.6 Final Report

A Final Report shall be due at the end of the final phase of the effort. The final report will be a cumulative, stand-alone document that describes the work of the entire program and projects.

The final report shall also include “lessons learned” from the effort, recommendations for future research in this area, and a comprehensive accounting of all funds expended. A final report will be due within 60 days of the end of the final phase's period of performance.

4 PROCUREMENT OVERVIEW

4.1 ELIGIBLE OFFERORS

Private industry, non-profit organizations, and academic institutions are invited to submit proposals to this BAA, and may team/subcontract with other companies, organizations, and institutions to include FFRDCs, UARCs and other Federally-funded Government activities, as appropriate, to best utilize their individual strengths.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Minority Institutions (MI), Small and Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), women-owned businesses, and HUB-zone enterprises are encouraged to submit proposals, and to join others as team members/subcontractors in submitting proposals. However, no portion of the BAA will be set-aside for these special entities pursuant to FAR Part 19.502-2.

FFRDCs, UARCs and other Federally-funded Government activities may not propose directly as prime contractors to this BAA. However, they may collaborate with eligible Offerors by providing explicitly identified supporting capabilities. It is the responsibility of the providing laboratory (not DNDO) to identify which supporting capabilities are available. DNDO will neither encourage nor discourage eligible Offerors from utilizing FFRDCs, UARCs and other Federally-funded Government activities. This is at the sole discretion of eligible Offerors. All members of the proposed team may participate in proposal preparation and fully participate in the execution of the program. UARCs must include as part of a full proposal a statement of permission to participate from the Center's Federal sponsoring activity.

Foreign participants and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary Non-Disclosure Agreements, Security Regulations, Export Laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

Note: Pursuant to FAR 25.701, except as authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the Department of the Treasury, no contracts shall be awarded as a result of this BAA if any proclamation, Executive Order, or statute administered by OFAC, or OFAC’s implementing regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V, would prohibit such a transaction. Except as authorized by OFAC, most transactions involving Cuba, Iran, and Sudan are prohibited, as are most imports from North Korea into the United States or its outlying areas. More information about these restrictions, as well as updates, is available in OFAC’s regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V and/or on OFAC’s website at http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac.

Note: FAR 52.225-13, Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases, is applicable to this solicitation and will be included in any resulting contract.

Organizational Conflict of Interest issues will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as outlined below. Offerors who have existing contract(s) to provide scientific, engineering, technical and/or administrative support directly to DHS DNDO will receive particular scrutiny.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac

Organizational Conflict of Interest:

(a) Disclosure. The Offeror must represent, as part of its proposal and to the best of its knowledge that: (1) It is not aware of any facts which create any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest relating to the award of this contract; or (2) It has included information in its full proposal, providing all current information bearing on the existence of any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest, and has included the mitigation plan in accordance with paragraph (d) of this provision.

(b) Determination. The Contracting Officer may determine that this effort may result in an actual or potential conflict of interest, or may provide one or more Offerors with the potential to attain an unfair competitive advantage based on the information provided or based on knowledge of the Contracting Officer.

(c) If any such conflict of interest is found to exist, the Contracting Officer may (1) disqualify the Offeror, or (2) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the United States to contract with the Offeror and include the appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict in the contract awarded. After discussion with the Offeror, the Contracting Officer may determine that the actual conflict cannot be avoided, neutralized, mitigated, or otherwise resolved to the satisfaction of the Government, and the Offeror may be found ineligible for award.

(d) Mitigation/Waiver. If an Offeror with a potential or actual conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage believes it can be mitigated, neutralized, or avoided, the Offeror may submit a mitigation plan to the Contracting Officer for review. Award of a contract where an actual or potential conflict of interest exists shall not occur before Government approval of the mitigation plan.

(e) Other Relevant Information. In addition to the mitigation plan, the Contracting Officer may require further relevant information from the Offeror. The Contracting Officer will use all information submitted by the Offeror, and any other relevant information known to DHS, to determine whether an award to the Offeror may take place, and whether the mitigation plan adequately neutralizes or mitigates the conflict.

(f) Corporation Change. The successful Offeror…