100426 1930 Advanced Math BAA.pdf

Math BAA 2010/01

U.S. ONLY

Advanced Mathematics for DoD Battlefield Challenges Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) For Director, Joint Interoperability AT&L/DDR&E

1 Overview Information

1.1 Federal Agency Name

1.1.1 Department of Defense; Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Director Defense Research & Engineering; Director, Joint Interoperability

1.2 Funding Opportunity Title

1.2.1 Advanced Mathematics for DoD Battlefield Challenges

1.3 Announcement Type

1.3.1 Initial Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

1.4 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)

1.4.1 N/A

1.5 Key Dates

1.5.1 Bidders Conference: 14 May 2010

1.5.2 Quad Chart Due Date: 28 May 2010

1.5.3 White Paper Due Date: 30 June 2010

1.5.4 Proposal Due Date: 30 July 2010

1.5.5 Award: September 2010

1.6 Anticipated Individual Awards

1.6.1 Multiple awards are anticipated.

1.7 Types Of Instruments That May Be Awarded

1.7.1 Awards under this solicitation may be procurement contracts or other transactions.

1.8 Respondents

1.8.1 Limited to US citizens only

1.9 Technical POC

1.9.1 Tristan Nguyen, tristan.nguyen@navy.mil, 7035882360

2 Full Text of Announcement

2.1 Funding Opportunity Description

2.1.1 The Department of Defense often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. The BAA will appear first on the Federal Business Opportunities website, http://www.fedbizopps.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA. DoD is soliciting proposals for research to develop and demonstrate potentially revolutionary solutions to current and future battlefield challenges.

2.2 Introduction

2.2.1 One of the DDR&E’s four imperatives is to fully realize the power of sophisticated mathematics in seeking solutions for current and future battlefield challenges. This is expected to demand the engagement of world‐class mathematical scientists from the academic research community as well as other research organizations. It is also anticipated to require both innovative extensions of mathematical tools currently used in defense applications as well as the harvesting of powerful ideas from areas of mathematics that have not previously been drawn upon to enhance defense capabilities.

2.3 Background

2.3.1 Today’s battlefield is a complicated and densely cluttered environment that encompasses a multitude of fixed and moving objects, including stationary structures, slow moving air and ground vehicles and human traffic (i.e., “dismounts”). Within this environment, there is a need to detect, identify, and track hostile elements that are closely commingled with innocent civilians and friendly forces. To support this need, a myriad of sensors of varying types, capabilities, on‐board processing power, coverage patterns, and mechanisms of deployment are available – increasingly in networked configurations. But the availability of ever more sophisticated and ubiquitous sensors in the battlefield is only one component of the solution; indeed, today’s battlefield has been characterized as an environment in which decision makers at all levels are thirsting for knowledge while drowning in a sea of data.

Our capability to collect data well exceeds our capability to process it into timely and reliable information that can be used by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in making decisions at all levels – including crucial shoot/no‐shoot decisions. Furthermore, making the best use of battlefield sensor assets still entails unresolved challenges even at the fundamental levels of sensor placement and management; e.g., how should electro‐ optical/infrared sensors with high fidelity but narrow fields of view (“soda straw sensors”) be placed to optimize cueing by wider swath sensors?

2.3.2 It is widely recognized that mathematics has an important role to play in achieving a coherent and actionable picture of the battlefield from high‐dimensional dynamic data sets, of disparate types, that generally contain sparse, late and misordered data. Many currently fielded systems and algorithms are built upon mathematical and statistical foundations, and ongoing mathematical research aimed at extending and enhancing these capabilities continues to provide important advances in performance. Nevertheless, the DDR&E’s imperative recognizes that several areas of advanced mathematics offer the potential to achieve fundamentally new capabilities, yet have not been aggressively harvested with a view toward solving defense (or other) application problems.

Consequently, this solicitation seeks to both push the frontiers of traditional applied mathematics and to cultivate mathematical ideas that are not represented in the usual application corpus. While synergistic combination of new methodology with more established approaches for battlefield applications is envisioned, exploration of ideas with potential for ultimately leapfrogging today’s techniques in these application contexts is also encouraged.

2.4 Mathematical Challenges

2.4.1 To provide focus to the process of cultivating new and transformative mathematical capabilities for defense applications, and to maximize the potential for impact on current military operations, this solicitation centers upon a collection of challenges manifested in the battlefield environment described above. It is anticipated that advances in mathematical methodology born within this context will ultimately have impact on other defense applications ranging from undersea to space and affecting such diverse areas as biology, climatology, and social science. Nevertheless, this BAA seeks research concepts directed toward developing a coherent picture of the battlefield at a tactical level that can be used to support real‐time (sometimes measured in milliseconds) decisions on matters, such as fire control, where understanding the fidelity of and uncertainties in the picture are vital. This requires new techniques for fusing, predicting, visualizing and extracting features and information from disparate sources ranging from sensor data (e.g., optical, radio‐frequency, acoustic, and chemical) to human intelligence data to historical database to expert opinion; i.e., spanning the gamut of human intelligence (HUMINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), and signal intelligence (SIGINT) information sources.

2.4.2 Mathematics has played a central role in development of technologies currently used by DoD in battlefield scenarios, and it continues to be a central element in emerging capabilities. A vast majority of these contributions have arisen from a few areas of mathematics (e.g., linear algebra and systems theory, differential equations, probability and statistics) that have traditionally been exploited in applications. DDR&E’s imperative recognizes that the broader body of mathematical knowledge is an important resource to bring to bear on today’s defense challenges. Developing a global understanding from data that are most often local in nature, requiring fusion of data from multiple sources of disparate types, is one battlefield challenge into which classical tools of applied mathematics have provided only limited inroads (much current research in this area has adopted heuristic approaches due to the intractability of more rigorous ones based in classical applied mathematics). This joint force information fusion challenge, in particular, is fertile ground for ideas from areas of traditionally “pure’ mathematics where developing global information from local information is well studied, but not in the context of real‐ world applications. Such ideas may provide the key to new practical techniques that enable information fusion across multiple modalities, and that can not only be implemented into a complex, heterogeneous system of systems, but can transcend user needs from command to the lowest tactical level of warfare. This level of warfare includes “disadvantaged users” that operate with limited bandwidth in the real time. Further, in the joint force, across the domains of air, land, sea and space, sensors and information sources may not necessarily be accurately or precisely reporting their actual location against a common geospatial reference or a common clock.

2.4.3 Other examples of broad mathematical challenges arising from the battlefield application domain include the need to quantify uncertainty as it manifests in large‐scale interconnected systems, ultimately achieving descriptions of the battlespace that allow decision makers to understand risk in terms relevant and meaningful to their tasks.

Detecting the presence of poorly defined anomalies in large data sets/streams has become recognized as an important capability, particularly in today’s battlefield where adversaries are difficult to distinguish from non‐combatants. Post‐analysis of suicide bombings, for example, have revealed hints available in sensor data in the form of unusual events preceding the actual attack. Identifying such cues in sensor data in prognostic fashion rather than after the fact presents a formidable mathematical challenge.

2.5 The Common Tactical Picture Challenge

2.5.1 In view of the acute and long‐term importance of solving problems faced by warfighters in battlefield situations of the kinds described above, and also the perceived role of mathematics in achieving these solutions, the DoD Advanced Mathematics for Battlefield Challenges program is focused on developing and applying advanced mathematical approaches to the Common Tactical Picture challenge; i.e.,

2.5.1.1 Ensure the each decision maker in the battlefield, from the Joint Task Force Level to the lowest levels of the command hierarchy, has continuous access to a clear, timely, and unambiguous representation of the battlefield in a form that supports his or her role in the mission.

2.5.2 Whether sensors are deployed at fixed locations or on moving collecting platforms, the common tactical picture for joint interoperability requires foremost seamless aggregation of information derived from these sensing modalities. Current methodology often either relies on a great deal of human intervention to translate sensor data into formats from which information can be fused, or it doesn’t fuse the various types of data at all (e.g.

electro optical with acoustic or radar).

2.5.3 Essential questions that battlefield decision makers want their tactical pictures to answer include:

2.5.4 RealTime Battlespace Situational Awareness

2.5.4.1 Are objects of interest present in my battlespace?

2.5.4.2 How do I discriminate among them?

2.5.4.3 What are they? Are they friendly, enemy, or neutral?

2.5.4.4 Where are they? What are their current trajectories, speeds, altitudes, maneuver timings, etc?

2.5.4.5 What is their history?

2.5.4.6 What is their intent?

2.5.4.7 Has a key “event” occurred? If so, what is its significance?

2.5.4.8 What are the relationships between the objects, the events and the objects and events?

2.5.4.9 How confident can I be about each of these answers?

2.5.5 Action Assessment

2.5.5.1 What assets should I seek to cue to an area of activity/interest?

2.5.5.2 Should I engage a target? Evade it?

2.6 In View Of These Demands On A Common Tactical Picture, Essential Components Of The Challenge Include:

2.6.1 Target Identification

2.6.1.1 What are the objects of interest in the battlefield?

2.6.1.2 What is the nature of each object of interest (e.g., friendly, neutral, hostile, unknown)?

2.6.1.3 Does the object represent an immediate threat that should be engaged or evaded?

This includes the need to make shoot/noshoot decisions made in real time.

2.6.2 Target Tracking

2.6.2.1 Merging of information from multiple sensors and sensing modalities to provide a unique and unambiguous track for each object of interest in the battlespace.

2.6.2.2 Providing uncertainty information in a form suitable for decision making for each track.

2.6.3 Data Management

2.6.3.1 Support realtime tasking of information resources and integration of data from disparate sources into actionable information.

2.6.3.2 Provide mechanisms for operation in the presence of incomplete and inaccurate data, maintaining awareness of uncertainties arising from such imperfections.

2.7 This Operational Problem Set Suggests Emphasis On Six Key Mathematical Challenge Areas:

2.7.1 Data/information fusion

2.7.2 Information Extraction / Data Interpretation

2.7.3 Inference and Prediction

2.7.4 Information Presentation / Visualization

2.7.5 Information Management and Architectures

2.7.6 Uncertainty Quantification

2.8 Specific Challenge Problems

2.8.1 To establish and maintain clear connections to the program’s focus applications, proposed projects should include a demonstration milestone NLT Dec 2011. This demonstration shall be designed to explicitly address aspects of one or both of the challenge problems set forth below. It is anticipated that performance breakthroughs in these challenge problems will mandate new mathematical techniques beyond approaches in use today. Proposals should clearly explain how their mathematical innovations will manifest algorithms that address the challenge problems and the associated evaluation criteria. This program will contain options for efforts in FY 2012 and 2013. Efforts that may be selected for additional option years will be heavily based on performance in the Dec 2011 demonstration.

2.9 Challenge Problem 1: Creating the elements of a common tactical picture in the Low/slow air and ground domain

2.9.1 Using the data sets provided, extract features to enable a clear and continuous composite track of an enemy target from multiple information sources, moving in space and time, in a densely cluttered environment. Locate, identify and predict the track of an enemy target amongst the clutter, using the data streams provided by multiple information and sensor types. Hold identification of the track for the lifetime of the track, using mathematical techniques that combine multiple sources of data, with discrimination from other closely situated friend and neutral entities.

2.10 Evaluation Criteria: Common Tactical Picture, Ground and LowSlow Air

2.10.1 ID Correctness – Average percentage of objects that are correctly identified

2.10.2 Track Identification – Friend, neutral, hostile, or unknown

2.10.3 Track Continuity (i.e., maintains ID of track) – Average amount of time an object’s track is reported without its track identifier (e.g. friend, neutral, hostile, or unknown) changing

2.10.4 Track Ambiguity (low spurious track ratio, ideally one track per target) – Average value of uncorrelated tracks per object

2.10.5 Positional Accuracy

2.10.6 Velocity Accuracy

2.10.7 ID Ambiguity (percent confidence)

2.11 Challenge Problem 2: Optimizing Sensor Placement and Management

2.11.1 In advance of data/information fusion to form a common tactical picture, the reduction of unwanted local data is imperative to remove irrelevant information which can deleteriously affect a fusion procedure. This additional step is also essential in eliminating the data deluge which results from indiscriminate collection of data through a multitude of sensors. As a concrete example, we presently have hundreds of sensors in Afghanistan that provide high fidelity but a very limited field of view. They see the world through a soda straw. If we could optimally place and task these sensors to look at specific targets of interest at specific times, thereby collecting the data we need rather than data that happens to be available, use of battlefield communication and computational resources would be optimized and the relevance of information provided to warfighters would be enhanced.

2.11.2 Although optimal sensor placement is an active research discipline which predominantly hinges upon specific missions, this BAA focuses on sensor placement and management in direct support of Challenge Problem 1 that is described above. In other words, advanced mathematical techniques that can be used to simultaneously tackle both Challenge Problems in a unified framework will be given precedence in direct support of the Joint Interoperability undertakings.

2.11.3 Hence the challenge problem is to use available data to cue high fidelity/narrow field of view sensors in order to maximize sensor coverage and effectiveness on an identified activity in the data set provided.

2.12 Evaluation Criteria: Sensor Placement and Management

2.12.1 Ability to derive global target information from local data

2.12.2 Timeliness – Time required to identify an event of interest

2.12.3 Cueing Accuracy ‐ distance between cue location and the actual target;

2.12.4 Sensor economy ‐ minimal use of sensor resources to achieve a desired level of performance);

2.12.5 Ability to identify an event of interest from multiple or decentralized data streams.

2.13 Data Resources

2.13.1 There are two sources of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) data available to support this BAA. Synopses of these sources and instructions for accessing them are as follows

2.13.2 One unclassified data set will be electro‐optical data provided by the government of an urban area with coordinated ground activity occurring within the sensors field of view.

2.14 Sensor Data Management System Public Site

2.14.1 Unclassified data representing a variety of modalities and scenarios relevant to the challenge problems in this BAA is available at https://www.sdms.afrl.af.mil/main.php.

Both real sensor data and high‐quality simulated data are available. By going to the website and clicking the “Request Data” link in the sidebar, proposers can see what data is available, download limited samples of the data, and order particular data sets.

2.15 Program Structure

2.15.1 DoD will provide an independent team to evaluate quad charts, white papers and proposals.

This team may be a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). DoD will also staff a team of subject matter experts from Government and support contractors to attend program reviews and provide feedback to the Program Manager. In addition to periodic program reviews, regular telecoms will be encouraged to enhance communications with the Government team. Should important issues arise between program reviews; the Government team will be available to support informal interim technical interchange meetings.

2.15.2 The basic Advanced Mathematics for DoD Battlefield Challenges program will be

UNCLASSIFIED.

2.16 Transition Goals and Issues

2.16.1 A major goal of DoD is to transition the advanced mathematics developed under this effort to military sensors and weapon systems that will help our warfighters, particularly in Afghanistan.

2.16.2 The Government expects Government Purpose Rights (GPR) on all information developed in the Advanced Mathematics for DoD Battlefield Challenges program. Offerors must provide strong justification for delivery of any material with less than GPR or with requirements for licensed software to run or modify delivered software.

2.17 Deliverables

2.17.1 Benchmark Demonstrator

2.17.1.1 A demonstration of the algorithmic technique with the data shall be conducted in the Dec 2011 timeframe or sooner. The demonstration shall show the effectiveness of the algorithmic technique in solving the Challenge Problem, and calculate the metrics achieved by the technique for that problem.

2.17.1.2 A final report that provides detailed documentation of the above that would enable someone unconnected with the effort to duplicate the results of the demonstration.

2.17.1.3 Responders will need to clearly define their algorithmic approach to address the challenge problems, the evaluation criteria, and how they demonstrate their solutions, to include identifying the particular data sets to be used in the demonstration.

2.18 Award Information

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

2.18.2 The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation, and to make awards without discussions with offerors. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre‐priced options. Additionally, DoD reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DoD desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that offeror. If the proposed effort is inherently divisible and nothing is gained from the aggregation, offerors should consider submitting it as multiple independent efforts. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work at the end of one or more of the phases.

2.18.3 Awards under this BAA will be made to offerors on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see Section V ‐ Application Review Information), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract or other transaction depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors.

2.18.4 The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications. The Government reserves the right to remove offerors from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the offeror fails to timely provide requested additional information.

2.18.5 As of the date of publication of this BAA, DoD expects that some research program goals for this BAA may be met by offerors intending to perform “fundamental research,” i.e., basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons. DoD intends to fund Phase 1 of this program with 6.2 (Applied Research) funding.

DoD research funded with 6.2 and performed on‐campus at a university is considered “fundamental research” except in those rare and exceptional circumstances where a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense, and where agreement on restrictions have been recorded in the contract or grant. If an offeror intends to subcontract any fundamental research that will be accomplished on‐campus at a university, the offeror must clearly identify this aspect of the effort in their proposal. Any resulting contract will clearly specify what part of the effort is "fundamental research" and, therefore, not subject to restrictions on the dissemination of this information.

2.18.6 Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, DoD is not prohibited from considering and selecting research proposals that, while perhaps not qualifying as 'fundamental research' under the foregoing definition, still meet the BAA criteria for submissions. In all cases, the contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument provisions with selectees.

2.19 Eligibility Information

2.19.1 Eligible Applicants

2.19.1.1 All responsible U.S sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DoD. Applicants are limited to U.S. citizens only.

2.19.1.2 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions (MIs) 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.

2.19.1.3 Governmentfunded entities (Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), Government/National laboratories) and Government entities (military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity (as prime or sub) unless they meet the following conditions.

2.19.1.3.1 FFRDCS must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector AND they must also provide a letter on letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to government solicitations and compete with industry in compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be prime or subcontractors.

2.19.1.3.2 Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority (as well as, where relevant, contractual authority) establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations.

2.19.1.4 At the present time, DoD does not consider 15 U.S.C. 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C. 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility.

2.19.1.5 DoD will consider eligibility submissions on a casebycase basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the offeror.

2.19.1.6 Applicants considering classified submissions (or requiring access to classified information during the lifecycle of the program) shall ensure all industrial, personnel, and information system processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance (FCL), Personnel Security Clearance (PCL), certification and accreditation (C&A)) and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence

2.19.1.7 (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to such submission or access. Additional information on these subjects can be found at: www.dss.mil.

2.20 Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, And Organizational Conflicts Of Interest

2.20.1 Current federal employees are prohibited from participating in particular matters involving conflicting financial, employment, and representational interests (18 USC 203, 205, and 208.).

2.20.2 Once the proposals have been received, and prior to the start of proposal evaluations, the Government will assess potential conflicts of interest in regards to the DoD Program Manager, as well as those individuals chosen to evaluate proposals received under this BAA, and will promptly notify the offeror if any appear to exist. (Please note the Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the offeror’s own duty to give full notice and planned mitigation for all potential organizational conflicts, as discussed below.)

2.20.3 In accordance with FAR 9.503 and without prior approval or a waiver from the Director, Joint Interoperability, a contractor cannot simultaneously be a SETA and a performer.

Therefore, all offerors and proposed subcontractors must affirm whether they (their organizations and individual team members) are providing scientific, engineering, and technical assistance (SETA) or similar support to any DJI technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must state which office(s) the offeror, sub and/or individual supports and identify the prime contract numbers. Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposal submission. All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. The Government will make the final determination on what constitutes a conflict of interest.

The disclosure shall include a description of the action the offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. Proposals that fail to fully disclose potential conflicts of interests and/or do not have plans to mitigate this conflict will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

2.20.4 If a prospective offeror has any questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest (whether organizational or otherwise), the offeror should promptly raise the issue with DoD by sending his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict by email to the mailbox address for this BAA at stephen.biernesser.ctr@osd.mil and kortnee.stewart@whs.mil before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan. If, in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, any conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal may be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award under this BAA.

2.20.5 Cost Sharing or Matching

2.20.5.1 Cost sharing is not required for this particular program; however, cost sharing will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument (e.g., for any Technology Investment Agreement under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371). Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

2.21 Application and Submission Information

2.21.1 Address to Request Application Package

2.21.1.1 This solicitation contains all information required to submit a proposal. No additional forms, kits, or other materials (other than those noted within this document) are needed. This notice constitutes the total BAA. No additional information is available, nor will a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) or additional solicitation regarding this announcement be issued. Requests for same will be disregarded.

2.22 Content and Form of Application Submission

2.22.1 Proposal Information

2.22.2 Phase 1 Quad Chart Submissions

2.22.2.1 Offerors shall prepare and submit a onepage (8 ½ by 11 inches) Quad Chart in response to Phase 1 of this BAA. Use font sizes of 10 point or greater. If more than one page is submitted, only the first page will be evaluated. Quad Charts do not require a Cover Page.

2.22.3 Phase 1 Due Date and Time

2.22.3.1 All unclassified Quad Charts must be received electronically no later than 1600 (4:00 p.m.) Eastern Time (ET) 28 May 2010. Likewise, classified submissions must be received by the same due date and time. Refer to the “Special Handling Procedures for Classified Information” in this document for instructions on classified submissions. Any proposal that is late will not be considered by the Government. Avoid the last minute rush; submit early.

2.22.4 Electronic File Format

2.22.4.1 The Quad Chart shall be submitted in Microsoft Office (Word or PowerPoint), or Adobe Acrobat (PDF – portable document format). ZIP files and other application formats are not acceptable. The document must be printcapable, without password, and no larger than 500 Kb. Filenames must contain the appropriate filename extension (.doc, .ppt, or .pdf). Filenames cannot contain spaces or special characters. Apple/Macintosh users must ensure the entire filename and path are free of spaces and special characters.

Submissions that cannot be opened, viewed, or printed will not be considered.

2.22.5 Quad Chart Content

2.22.5.1 A Quad chart conveys the essence of the proposed solution for a single requirement.

When preparing a submission, the offeror shall ensure that the specific criteria of the requirement are addressed, the solution is clear, and can be accomplished with the proposed technology, cost, and schedule. The Quad Chart includes a document header and four quadrants.

2.22.6 Header Information

2.22.6.1 Header information shall include the BAA Announcement number, the Document Identifier, and the Proposal Title. The date and company name should be included along with the appropriate document markings.

2.22.7 Top Left Quadrant, Graphical Depiction

2.22.7.1 The top left quadrant is a graphical depiction, photograph, or artist’s concept of the proposed solution or prototype. Include labels or brief descriptive text as needed for clarification. Ideally, this will convey the prototype concept, use, capability, and any relevant size or weight relationships based on the published requirement.

2.22.8 Top Right Quadrant, Operational and Performance Capabilities

2.22.8.1 The top right quadrant contains the operational and performance capabilities summary. Describe any basic, new, or enhanced capabilities the system will provide to meet the published requirement. In bullet form, list key aspects of performance, capability, operational use, relevant software or hardware specifications, and planned interface and/or compatibility.

2.22.9 Bottom Left Quadrant, Technical Approach

2.22.9.1 The bottom left quadrant contains the proposed technical approach. Specifically, describe the technology involved, how it will be used to solve the problem, actions done to date, and any related ongoing efforts. Briefly describe the tasks to be performed for each phase. A bullet list is acceptable.

2.22.10 Bottom Right Quadrant, Cost and Schedule

2.22.10.1 The bottom right quadrant contains the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) and Schedule, Products and Deliverables, and Corporate Contact Information. ROM and Schedule shall be proposed by phase and include the cost, period of performance (POP), and exit criteria for each phase. A total cost and POP that combines all phases shall also be included. Products and Deliverables shall include, by phase, a list of all prototype hardware and software along with the required data as described in “Product and Deliverable Requirements” in section 2 of this document. Corporate Contact Information shall include the submitter’s company name, point of contact, phone number, and email address. Include any significant teaming partner (contact information) relevant to the evaluation.

2.22.11 Phase 1 Notification to Offeror

2.22.11.1 The Government will notify the offeror when a submission has been accepted or rejected. Notification of acceptance with a request to submit the next phase document will be emailed to the offeror’s contracting authority and will indicate the next submission type, clarification requests, and due date and time. Likewise, rejection notifications will be emailed to the address provided. Debriefings for Quad Charts will not be conducted due to the nature of BAAs. In general, submissions are not considered for further review when they do not meet the basic requirement, are too costly, or do not fit the mission.

2.22.12 Phase 1 Status and Inquiries

2.22.12.1 Phase 1 is complete when all submissions have been accepted or rejected in accordance with this BAA. Inquiries by phone concerning the status of Quad Charts will not be accepted.

2.22.13 White Paper and Proposal Information

2.22.13.1 Proposers whose quad charts are selected will be requested to submit a white paper in advance of a full proposal. The white paper should contain a description of the proposed technique(s), timeframe by which it could be implemented in a software solution, how it would address the challenge problem(s). This procedure is intended to minimize unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and review. DoD will acknowledge receipt of the submission and confirm the control number assigned during the online submission process. This control number should be used in all further correspondence regarding the white paper. White papers shall not exceed 5 pages in length. An additional 1 page for biographies is permitted.

2.22.13.2 White papers will be reviewed as they are received until the deadline. Early submissions of white papers are strongly encouraged because selections may be made at any time during the period in which this BAA remains open. White Papers may be submitted at any time up to 4:00pm ET, 6/30/2010. After 6/30/2010, submitted white papers will be reviewed as quickly as possible, but may not allow for sufficient time to meet the full proposal submission deadline, if a proposal is recommended. DoD will respond to white papers with a statement as to whether DoD encourages submission of a full proposal.

2.22.14 Proposal Preparation and Format

2.22.14.1 The proposal shall be comprised of two volumes, Volume 1 (technical proposal) and Volume 2 (cost proposal). Proposals not meeting the format described in this BAA may not be reviewed.

2.22.15 Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

2.22.15.1 The technical proposal shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page (where a "page" is 81/2 by 11 inches with type not smaller than 12 point, charts may use 10 pt font, margins not smaller than 1 inch, and line spacing not smaller than single spaced).

2.22.15.2 All submissions must be in English.

2.22.15.3 There is no page limit for the individual proposal sections listed below, unless otherwise noted. However, Volume 1 shall not exceed a total of 20 pages, not including the attached bibliography.

2.22.15.4 Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an indepth review of the specific technical and managerial issues.

2.22.15.5 Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to DoD.

2.22.16 Proposal Section 1. Administrative / Confirmation Sheet/Cover Sheet

2.22.16.1 As described above, this cover sheet will contain the following information:

2.22.16.2 BAA number;

2.22.16.3 Proposal title;

2.22.16.4 Technical point of contact including: name, telephone number, electronic mail address, fax (if available) and mailing address;

2.22.16.5 Administrative point of contact including: name, telephone number, electronic mail address, fax (if available) and mailing address;

2.22.16.6 Summary of the costs of the proposed research, including total base cost, estimates of base cost in each year of the effort, estimates of itemized options in each year of the effort, and cost sharing if relevant;

2.22.16.7 Contractor’s reference number (if any)

2.22.16.8 Contractor's type of business and associated CAGE code.

2.22.17 Table of Contents

2.22.18 Proposal Section 2 Technical Details

2.22.19 Full Proposal Components

2.22.19.1 Full Proposals shall consist of two major sections described in this document. The first section is the Technical Proposal and shall include all information related to the proposal as specified in this BAA including figures, charts, and tables plus the cover page. Second is the Cost Proposal to include all cost data.

2.22.20 Technical Proposal Content

2.22.20.1 The Technical Proposal shall provide a technically detailed solution of the problem addressed in the requirement and fully expand the technology proposed in the prior submission. The following sections and associated data are required. The offeror shall incorporate all clarification data requests in the acceptance email. Indicate clarification entries by footnote and reference the requested item(s) in the footer area.

2.22.21 Cover Page

2.22.21.1 The cover page shall include necessary contractual information including the offeror’s contracting point of contact (name, telephone number, email address, facsimile number, mailing address) and business information (Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, business type). Include the proposed contract type, total cost, and the duration of all phases/tasks. Cover pages are excluded from the page count.

2.22.22 Abstract

2.22.22.1 The abstract is a one page (or less) synopsis of the proposal that includes the title and the basic approach to satisfy the requirement. Describe the overall scope of work to be performed for the entire period of performance inclusive of options. The abstract shall standalone and be suitable for release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.

552, as amended.

2.22.23 Executive Summary

2.22.23.1 An executive summary is a concise description of the technology and solution being proposed. Include key information that demonstrates how the proposed solution meets the published requirement. The executive summary should not introduce any new information not covered in the subsequent content.

2.22.24 Technical Approach

2.22.24.1 Describe the technical approach for the proposed solution to meet the requirement.

2.22.24.2 This shall include at a minimum:

2.22.24.2.1 A description of the algorithmic technique that will be used

2.22.24.2.2 A description of what data set will be used to demonstrate the algorithmic technique

2.22.24.2.3 A description of the demonstration that will be done to show how the algorithmic technique works

2.22.24.3 Include technical details of the solution and fully expand the technology proposed in the prior phase submission. Include the methodology, underlying theory, system components. Include drawings, diagrams, charts, and tables needed to explain the effort. Describe relevant prior application of the proposed technology and/or solution, how it is being used, and by whom. Identify sponsoring agency and funding resources;

or if none, so state.

2.22.25 Project Plan

2.22.25.1 The project plan shall be for a base effort starting 1 Oct 2010, culminating in a demonstration NLT Dec 2011, with 2 subsequent option years in FY 2012 and 2013, organized by phase and describing the work to be performed along with all associated requirements to successfully complete the proposed effort.

2.22.25.2 Phases

2.22.25.2.1 Phases shall be defined by the subset of tasks to be performed, phase objectives to be accomplished, and the required period of performance to completion. Phases shall be listed in order of occurrence. Identify phases that are optional. Each phase must contain clear exit criteria that is measurable evidence of completion and serves as a “go” or “no‐go” decision point. Each phase shall include a total cost.

2.22.25.3 Tasks Within A Phase

2.22.25.3.1 For each task, provide a detailed description of the work to be performed.

Identify any work that will be performed by other organizations or agencies;

or if none, so state. Indicate if an agreement is in place for the resources.

2.22.25.4 Products and Deliverables

2.22.25.4.1 Identify all deliverables ‐ products as well as documentation and reports ‐ for each Task/Phase. The minimum deliverables shall be:

2.22.25.4.1.1 A description of the algorithmic technique that will be used

2.22.25.4.1.2 A description of what data set will be used to demonstrate the algorithmic technique

2.22.25.4.1.3 A description of the demonstration that will be done to show how the algorithmic technique works

2.22.25.4.1.4 A demonstration of the algorithmic technique with the data, to be conducted in the Dec 2011 timeframe or sooner. The demonstration shall show the effectiveness of the algorithmic technique in solving the Challenge Problem, and calculate the metrics achieved by the technique for that problem.

2.22.25.4.1.5 A final report that provides detailed documentation of the above that would enable someone unconnected with the effort to duplicate the results of the demonstration.

2.22.26 Master Schedule

2.22.26.1 Develop a master project schedule that includes phase start and stop dates as well as major milestones, critical tasks, and report and product delivery dates. Assume a start date of 1 October 2010. Indicate any optional phases.

2.22.27 Government Furnished Equipment

2.22.27.1 Identify all Government furnished equipment, materials, facilities, or information with the need date and suggested source. If Government equipment, materials, facilities, or information are not required, so state.

2.22.28 Project Risks and Mitigation

2.22.28.1 Identify anticipated technical and management risks along with planned mitigation efforts. Indicate the risk assessment as high, medium, or low.

2.22.29 Organizational Capability Statement

2.22.29.1 Include a brief description of the offeror’s organization. Describe the offeror’s capability and/or experience in doing the type of work being proposed. If applicable, include a description of coparticipants’ capabilities and/or experience. State whether an agreement has been reached with the coparticipants. Provide at least three references, to include points of contact, for like or similar work.

2.22.30 Organizational Resources

2.22.30.1 Identify key technical personnel and principal investigator(s) including alternates and coparticipants, if applicable. Include a brief biography, relevant expertise, and a list of recent publications for each. Identify any team members with potential conflicts of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include personnel formerly employed by the federal Government within the past two years from the date of proposal submission.

Provide name, duties, employing agency, and dates of employment; or if none, so state.

2.22.31 Intellectual Property, Technical Data and Software

2.22.31.1 All anticipated intellectual property, technical data or software rights shall be disclosed. See section 2 General Information, “Submission Handling/Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software/Patent Rights” in this document.

2.22.32 Patents and Patent Applications

2.22.32.1 Identify any existing, applied for, or pending patents that will be used in the conduct of this effort. Provide Patent number or application number and title. Any patent that resulted from prior government funding should be identified. State if no patents or patent applications are relevant.

2.22.33 Rights in Technical Data

2.22.33.1 Identify any technical data and/or computer software that will be delivered with less than unlimited rights as prescribed in DFARS 252.2277013 and DFARS 252.227 7014. State if unlimited rights in technical data are proposed.

2.22.34 Transition From Prototype to Production

2.22.34.1 Describe the approach and issues related to transition or commercialization of the results of this effort to an operationally suitable and affordable product for the intended users.

2.22.35 Test and Evaluation

2.22.35.1 Describe the plan to involve representative users during the design and development process and the general plan for test and evaluation by representative end users.

2.22.36 Environmental Impact

2.22.36.1 The proposal shall provide a statement regarding the impact of the work proposed on the environment. State if no impact exists.

2.22.37 Classification and Security

2.22.37.1 If the offeror is proposing to perform research in a classified area, indicate the level of classification of the research and the level of clearance of the potential principal investigator and all proposed personnel. The contractor shall include facility clearance information. Also, the contractor shall indicate the Government agency that issued the clearances. State if the proposed effort is unclassified.

2.22.38 Subcontracting Plan

2.22.38.1 If the total amount of the proposal exceeds $550,000 and the offeror is not a small business, the offeror shall submit a subcontracting plan for small business and small socially and economically disadvantaged business concerns. A mutually agreeable plan will be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The contract cannot be executed unless the contracting officer determines that the plan provides the maximum practicable opportunity for small business and small disadvantaged business concerns to participate in the performance of the contract. The Subcontracting Plan/information is excluded from page count.

2.22.39 Volume 2 – Cost Proposal

2.22.40 Cost Proposal

2.22.40.1 The offeror shall prepare and submit cost or pricing data, and supporting attachments in accordance with Table 152 of FAR 15.408. Submission of the Cost Proposal in Microsoft Office (Excel) format expedites processing by the reviewers. As soon as practicable after agreement on price, but before contract award, the offeror shall submit a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data as prescribed by FAR 15.4062 for cost type contracts exceeding $650,000.

2.22.41 Cost Summary

2.22.41.1 Provide a summary of the total cost for each phase and the total for the entire effort proposed. Indicate optional phases. Explain changes in cost greater than 10 percent from those proposed in the previous submission.

2.22.42 Other Funding Sources

2.22.42.1 The proposal shall provide the names of other federal, state, or local agencies, or other parties receiving the proposal and/or funding or potentially funding the proposed effort. State if no other funding sources or parties are involved.

2.22.43 Detailed Cost Estimate

2.22.43.1 Provide, in table format, a detailed cost breakdown by phase, of all items identified in the technical portion of the proposal for the following cost elements. Include all options.

2.22.44 Direct Labor

2.22.44.1 Provide a list of the applicable labor categories or positions showing the breakdown of labor hours, rates, cost for each category, and furnish the basis for the estimates.

Clearly indicate fiscal year rate changes and associated labor rate escalation calculations as applicable.

2.22.45 Indirect Costs

2.22.45.1 Indicate how the offeror has computed and applied offeror’s indirect costs. Indicate the rates used and provide an appropriate explanation.

2.22.46 Other Costs

2.22.46.1 List all other costs not included in other sections (e.g., special tooling, travel, computer and consultant services, preservation, packaging and packing, spoilage and rework) and provide the basis for pricing.

2.22.47 Materials

2.22.47.1 Provide a consolidated price summary of individual material quantities included in the various tasks and the basis for pricing (such as vendor…