QC3 BAA Amd 1.pdf

DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR

Quantum Characterization, Calibration, and Control (QC3)

W911NF25S0002

Issued by:

U.S. Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground

Research Triangle Park Division

P.O. BOX 12211

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211

I. OVERVIEW OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY:

A. Required Overview Content

1. Federal Agency Name(s):

2. Funding Opportunity Title: Quantum Characterization, Calibration, and Control (QC3)

3. Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

4. Research Opportunity Number: W911NF25S0002

5. Assistance Listing Number:12.431 – Basic Scientific Research

6. Response Dates:

B. Additional Overview Information

II. DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

A. Funding Opportunity Description

A.1 Overview of QC3

A.2 Detailed Topic Descriptions:

A.2.1 Research Topics Background A.2.2 Research Topic Areas Details

A.3 Proposal Guidance A.3.1 Technical Research Plan A.3.2 Research Knowledge Goals A.3.3 Other Guidance

A.4 Out of Scope

A.5 References

B. Federal Award Information

1. Procurement Contract

2. Grant

3. Cooperative Agreement

4. Other Transaction for Research

5. Other Transaction for Prototype or Production

6. Grants and cooperative agreements for Institutions of Higher Education, nonprofit organizations, foreign organizations, and foreign public entities

7. Grants and cooperative agreements for for-profit and nonprofit organizations exempted from Subpart E—Cost Principles of 2 CFR Part 200, are primarily governed by the following:

8. OTs for Research

9. OTs for Prototypes or Production

C. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants:

2. Cost Sharing or Matching:

3. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs):

D. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to View Broad Agency Announcement

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

4. Submission Dates and Times:

5. Intergovernmental Review

6. Funding Guidance:

7. Other Submission Requirements:

E. Application Review Information:

1. Criteria:

2. Review and Selection Process:

3. Recipient Qualification

F. Award Administration Information:

1. Award Notices:

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

3. Reporting:

G. Agency Contacts:

H. Other Information:

1. CONTRACT Proposals:

2. GRANT and COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Proposals

I. OVERVIEW OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY:

A. Required Overview Content

1. Federal Agency Name(s):

U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Army Research

Laboratory – Army Research Office (ARL-ARO)

Issuing Acquisition Office:

U.S. Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground, Research Triangle Park

Division (ACC-APG RTP Division)

2. Funding Opportunity Title: Quantum Characterization, Calibration, and Control (QC3)

3. Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

4. Research Opportunity Number: W911NF25S0002

5. Assistance Listing Number:12.431 – Basic Scientific Research

6. Response Dates:

White Papers: 4:00 PM Eastern Time on: 30 May 2025

Proposals: 4:00 PM Eastern Time on: 26 August 2025

See Section II. D. 4 for additional information.

B. Additional Overview Information

This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) which sets forth research areas of interest to the U.S.

Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Army Research Laboratory- Army

Research Office (ARL-ARO) and the National Security Agency (NSA) is issued under paragraph

6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and 10 U.S.C. 4001, 10 U.S.C.

4021, and 10 U.S.C. 4022 which provides for the competitive selection of basic research proposals.

Proposals submitted in response to this BAA and selected for award are considered to be the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provision of Public Law 98-369, "The

Competition in Contracting Act of 1984" and subsequent amendments.

The Department of Defense (DoD) agencies involved in this program reserve the right to select for award; all, some, or none of the proposals submitted in response to this announcement. The participating DoD agencies will provide no funding for direct reimbursement of proposal development costs. Technical and cost proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. It is the policy of participating DoD agencies to treat all proposals as sensitive, competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

II. DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

A. Funding Opportunity Description

DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory–Army Research Office (ARL-ARO) in partnership with the

Laboratory for Physical Sciences (LPS) is soliciting proposals for research in Quantum

Characterization, Calibration, and Control (QC3). This is a proposed four-year program and is primarily focused on three topic areas in the field of quantum computing (QC).

The topic areas are as follows:

(1) Characterization:

• Primary Research Goal: Advance the state-of-the-art to quantitatively assess the performance of qubit operations in multi-qubit circuits and to extract error-models.

(2) Calibration:

• Primary Research Goal: Advance state-of-the-art for bring up of multi-qubit circuits for high-performance operations near or better than fault-tolerance thresholds.

(3) Control:

• Primary Research Goal: Advance state-of-the-art control techniques to operate multi-qubit circuits operating near or better than fault-tolerant thresholds, accounting for the specifics of error-models for the circuit.

For this BAA, by error-models is meant the quantitative (Topic 1) description of the total, the types, and distribution of errors encountered by qubit operations in multi-qubit circuits.

Research proposals to these topics are sought that address the circuit gate-based model of quantum computation overhead and inefficiencies, as well as improve the accuracy and stability of characterization, calibration, and control schemes, in a manner relevant for qubit arrays in the 10s-

100s of qubits scale for early fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) applications.

A.1 Overview of QC3

Quantum computing hardware continues to make rapid progress, particularly in the quality and number of available qubits. Today, commercial systems regularly contain hundreds of qubits; moreover, several groups have demonstrated large arrays with two qubit fidelities of 99% or better [21, 22]. These advancements have enabled the implementation of deep circuits, and in particular quantum error correction (QEC) [23, 24], which is widely considered to be the key technique required to enable future fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) [12-13]. However, the increased size of these systems presents new challenges in efficiently characterizing performance, developing low error and robust control schemes adapted to system non-idealities, and fine-tuning system calibration for high performance that can be maintained over deep algorithm runtimes.

The research topic areas of this BAA aim to address some of the leading challenges discussed above and advance state-of-the-art in characterization, calibration, and control of FTQC circuits.

A.2 Detailed Topic Descriptions:

A.2.1 Research Topics Background

Initial efforts in quantum characterization, verification, and validation (QCVV) developed robust characterization schemes for one and two qubits, including randomized benchmarking [5,7], gate set tomography [2, 4, 7, 10], and variants thereof focused on identifying and quantifying specific error sources [1,3,6,9]. These techniques can be used to build a detailed error model describing the gate sets implemented on the hardware by quantifying the overall gate performance and the presence and dominance of specific errors. However, these techniques typically suffer from inefficiencies when scaling to larger qubit numbers, as well as an inability to fully address adversarial (but common) noise types, such as cross-talk and other correlated errors [18-19].

Furthermore, whether the aforementioned measures are sufficient to substantially and efficiently inform the efficacy of quantum error correction schemes at the performance levels required for future algorithms is largely unknown. Existing characterization techniques are often used in qubit calibration

[14], but it is often challenging to complete calibration steps before drift sets in [16] and to maintain this calibration over multiple experimental runs. Moreover, it remains unclear what efficiencies may be gained when syndrome extraction for quantum error correction is the primary circuit of interest [27, 28], or how to maintain calibration over many syndrome extraction cycles [20]. Finally, once the system is calibrated and/or the Hamiltonian of the system characterized [15], gathered information can be used to optimize control waveforms. However, such techniques, like reinforcement learning, add significant runtime and classical processing to even calibrate a single qubit [17].

A.2.2 Research Topic Areas Details

Potential research areas of proposals responding to this call includes, but are not limited to, refined, platform-tailored methods of estimating the physical error models relevant for quantum error correction as well as identification of error mechanisms limiting experimental performance; methods for developing high-fidelity simultaneous control of many qubits adapted to system realities; and demonstrations of methods for calibration and recalibration which can scale to systems of 10s-100s of qubits in an efficient and long-term stable manner (see table 1).

QC3 is soliciting proposals focused on techniques for optimizing the performance of operations required for error correction that can enable FTQC. This may allow for a reduction of the complexity of the proposed protocols, as the digital set of operations used in many quantum error correction protocols is much smaller than the set of all possible continuous gates. Moreover, for systems wherein quantum error correcting protocols require a series of repeated gates, only those combinations of gates involved in syndrome extraction need be considered, potentially reducing the need for a full characterization of correlated noise such as crosstalk. Proposing teams should take care, however, that proposed protocols should be relevant to error correction protocols which are scalable to future FTQC.

Characterization Control Calibration

• Error mechanism/model identification and quantification in multi-qubit systems

• Leakage model characterization and mitigation

• Correlated error diagnosis

• Scalable high-fidelity control adapted to system parameters

• Machine-learned control schemes

• Control schemes adapted to noise spectrum

• Scalable, rapid tune-up of many-qubit systems

• Stabilized calibration over repeated experimental runs

• Runtime Recalibration

Table 1: Potential topics in characterization, control, and calibration.

Proposals focused on developing protocols for efficient characterization, calibration, and control techniques must describe how the chosen research path would be compatible with a parameter space which scales as a polynomial of the number of qubits. The parameters characterized must also enable accurate and precise prediction of performance of the targeted error correction approach. While this parameter space would ideally be minimally sufficient, proposals must nevertheless provide an argument for why no smaller set of information could likely capture the behavior of the quantum system. While this clearly poses a challenge in adequately expressing the behaviors possible in quantum systems, two observations may be of use:

1) First, physically-motivated, hardware-informed model-based approaches typically already require a reduced parameter space for calibration and control. One sets the parameters of a model of a many-qubit system using experimental data and then develops control schemes. In this case, proposals using hardware-based models must explain how they plan to quantify if the particular models chosen are minimally sufficient to describe the quantum system.

Additionally, proposals should consider whether such parameterizations and controls are robust to the natural variation over time and space in the proposed quantum system.

2) A second approach could use initially hardware-uninformed approaches, either via abstract black-box treatments of the quantum system or via machine learning models, which are then trained on device data. The dimension of such a treatment could then be reduced in an unsupervised way via several techniques. In this case, proposals must address why the discovered lower-dimensional representations are appropriate for control and calibration and should be robust against the natural variation specified above.

Hybrids of these two approaches, or entirely new approaches to QC3, are encouraged.

A.3 Proposal Guidance

A.3.1 Technical Research Plan

Proposals are encouraged to address at least two of the three topic areas of characterization, calibration, and control, and must be focused on the application of these techniques to hardware and circuits needed for FTQC. Strong connections between two or more topic areas through the proposed research plan is encouraged. Proposals are encouraged to clearly identify relevant metrics designed to quantitatively access the efficacy of the proposed techniques, such protocol wall-clock time, the precision with which device parameters or dynamics can be extracted or the improvements these techniques enable in qubit operation performance. Furthermore, proposals should identify any limits and/or technical challenges to realizing proposed potential improvements, required compute resources, and any other key limiting factors. Proposals should focus on developing techniques relevant for systems of 10s-100s of qubits, with yearly goals outlining the development and demonstration of techniques.

A major component of QC3 will be experimental demonstration of advances to the state-of-the-art expected by the proposed research. Proposals should include a plan for experimentally demonstrating the proposed techniques, verifying their performance, and adapting to or learning from experimental non-idealities, using either existing experiments in partner laboratories or via cloud access, prior to the end of the program. Participating groups should ensure that access to sufficiently flexible control and quantitative data is available as needed to demonstrate the developed techniques for the duration of the program. For either case, repeated and mid-circuit measurements as required for syndrome extraction are likely necessary, and should be part of experimental capabilities of the selected platform as needed to meet yearly proposal goals.

A.3.2 Research Knowledge Goals

A QC3 program goal is to maintain a living compendium of the state-of-the art of research in the field.

Research plans should include written progress reports reviewing QC3 protocols developed and to-be developed under their effort starting no later than ten (10) months after the award start date, with yearly updates thereafter for the duration of the program. The content of the report should expand on techniques described in the proposal, any new techniques under consideration, technical challenges encountered and include reviews and analysis of the relevant protocols in the literature relevant to

FTQC, any gaps that might exist, and any new results or analysis that were not included in the performers’ proposal or were made since the start of the program.

A.3.3 Other Guidance

Funding guidance is provided in D.6

Proposals must include all the expertise needed to ensure success of the proposed research goals.

A.4 Out of Scope

Topics which fall outside the research scope of this BAA:

• Protocols for control, characterization and calibration of quantum annealing systems

• Benchmarks for predicting algorithm performance on non-error-corrected systems

• Tuning for circuits besides quantum error correction, such as variational circuits

• Error correction or mitigation approaches with exponential scaling cost

• Development of abstract quantum error correcting codes

A.5 References

[1] A. Carignan-Dugas, J. J. Wallman, and J. Emerson, “Characterizing universal gate sets via dihedral benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 92, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.060302.

[2] R. Blume-Kohout et al., “Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography,” Nat Commun, vol. 8, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14485.

[3] E. Magesan et al., “Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Randomized

Benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 109, no. 8, Art. no. 8, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.080505.

[4] E. Nielsen, J. K. Gamble, K. Rudinger, T. Scholten, K. Young, and R. Blume-Kohout, “Gate Set

Tomography,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 557, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.22331/q-2021-10-05-557.

[5] E. Knill et al., “Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 77, no. 1, Art.

no. 1, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012307.

[6] Y. Gu, R. Mishra, B.-G. Englert, and H. K. Ng, “Randomized Linear Gate-Set Tomography,” PRX

Quantum, vol. 2, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030328.

[7] R. Blume-Kohout, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Sterk, and P. Maunz, “Robust, self-consistent, closed-form tomography of quantum logic gates on a trapped ion qubit,” no.

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.060302 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14485 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.080505 https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-10-05-557 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012307 https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030328 arXiv:1310.4492. arXiv, Oct. 16, 2013. Accessed: Jun. 23, 2024. [Online].

Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4492

[8] J. Emerson, R. Alicki, and K. Życzkowski, “Scalable noise estimation with random unitary operators,” J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt., vol. 7, no. 10, Art. no. 10, Oct. 2005, doi: 10.1088/1464-4266/7/10/021.

[9] A. W. Cross, E. Magesan, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, “Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-Clifford gates,” npj Quantum Inf, vol. 2, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1038/npjqi.2016.12.

[10] S. T. Merkel et al., “Self-consistent quantum process tomography,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 87, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062119.

[11] R. Harper, I. Hincks, C. Ferrie, S. T. Flammia, and J. J. Wallman, “Statistical analysis of randomized benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 99, no. 5, Art. no. 5, May 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.052350.

[12] L. Postler et al., “Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations.” Zenodo, Nov. 24, 2021. doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.6244536.

[13] C. N. Self, M. Benedetti, and D. Amaro, “Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code,” Nat. Phys., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 219–224, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41567-023-02282-

2.

[14] S. Sheldon, L. S. Bishop, E. Magesan, S. Filipp, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Characterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative randomized benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. A, vol.

93, no. 1, p. 012301, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012301.

[15] J. Venkatraman, X. Xiao, R. G. Cortiñas, A. Eickbusch, and M. H. Devoret, “Static Effective

Hamiltonian of a Rapidly Driven Nonlinear System,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 129, no. 10, p. 100601, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.100601.

[16] J. P. Dehollain et al., “Optimization of a solid-state electron spin qubit using gate set tomography,” New J. Phys., vol. 18, no. 10, p. 103018, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1088/1367-

2630/18/10/103018.

[17] Y. Baum et al., “Experimental Deep Reinforcement Learning for Error-Robust Gate-Set Design on a Superconducting Quantum Computer,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 040324, Nov. 2021, doi:

10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040324.

[18] M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, “Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 321, Sep. 2020, doi:

10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321.

[19] J. M. Gambetta et al., “Characterization of Addressability by Simultaneous Randomized

Benchmarking,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 109, no. 24, p. 240504, Dec. 2012, doi:

10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.240504.

[20] E. T. Hockings, A. C. Doherty, and R. Harper, “Scalable noise characterisation of syndrome extraction circuits with averaged circuit eigenvalue sampling,” Apr. 09, 2024, arXiv:

arXiv:2404.06545. Accessed: Aug. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06545

[21] David C. McKay, Ian Hincks, Emily J. Pritchett, et. al., “Benchmarking Quantum Processors at

Scale,” arXiv:2311.05933.

[22] Simon J. Evered, Dolev Bluvstein, Marcin Kalinowski, et. al., “High-fidelity parallel entangling gates on a neutral atom quantum computer,” Nature volume 622, 268–272 (2023).

[23] Google Quantum AI, “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,” arXiv:2408.13687.

[24] M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, et. al., “Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates”, arXiv:2404.02280.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4492 https://doi.org/10.1088/1464-4266/7/10/021 https://doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2016.12 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062119 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.052350 http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06545 https://www.nature.com/

[25] Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, et. al., “Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays”, Nature 626, 58–65 (2024).

[26] Google Quantum AI, “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit”, Nature 614, 676–681 (2023).

[27] Steven Flammia “Averaged circuit eigenvalue sampling,” arXiv:2108.05803.

[28] Evan T. Hockings, Andrew C. Doherty, Robin Harper, “Scalable noise characteriation of syndrome extraction circuits with averaged circuit eigenvalue sampling”, arXiv:2404.06545.

B. Federal Award Information

Anticipated awards will be made in the form of procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, Other Transactions Agreements and are subject to the availability of appropriations.

Funding for the second year and beyond will be contingent upon satisfactory performance and the availability of funds.

The Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground, Research Triangle Park (ACC-APG

RTP) Division has the authority to award a variety of instruments on behalf of Army Research

Laboratory-Army Research Office (ARL-ARO). The ACC-APG RTP Division reserves the right to use the type of instrument most appropriate for the effort proposed. Applicants should familiarize themselves with these instrument types and the applicable regulations before submitting a proposal. Following are brief descriptions of the possible award instruments.

1. Procurement Contract

A legal instrument, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6303, which reflects a relationship between the

Federal Government and a State Government, a local government, or other entity/contractor when the principal purpose of the instrument is to acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government.

Contracts are primary governed by the following regulations:

a. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far

b. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars

c. Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) https://www.acquisition.gov/afars

2. Grant

A legal instrument that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship:

a. The principal purpose of which is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law or the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the DoD’s direct benefit or use.

b. In which substantial involvement is not expected between the DoD and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the grant.

c. No fee or profit is allowed.

3. Cooperative Agreement

A legal instrument which, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition “grant”), except that substantial involvement is expected between the DoD and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by http://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars http://www.acquisition.gov/afars the cooperative agreement. The term does not include “cooperative research and development agreements” as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a. No fee or profit is allowed.

4. Other Transaction for Research

A legal instrument, consistent with 10 U.S.C. 4021, which may be used for basic, applied, and advanced research projects. The research covered under this instrument cannot be duplicative of research being conducted under an existing DoD program. To the maximum extent practicable, OTs for research are to provide for a 50/50 cost share between the Government and the applicant. An applicant’s cost share may take the form of cash, independent research and development (IR&D), foregone intellectual property rights, equipment, access to unique facilities, and/or other means. Due to the extent of cost share, and the fact that an OT for research does not qualify as a “funding agreement” as defined at 37 CFR 401.2(a), the intellectual property provisions of this instrument can be negotiated to provide expanded protection to an applicant’s intellectual property. No fee or profit is allowed on OTs for research. Please refer to the Office of the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Other Transaction Guide version

2.0 dated July 2023 for additional information. This document, along with additional other transaction agreement (OTA) resources, may be accessed at the following link:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/other-policy-areas.html

5. Other Transaction for Prototype or Production.

A legal instrument, consistent with 10 U.S.C. 4022, which provides DoD the flexibility necessary to adopt and incorporate business practices that reflect commercial industry standards and best practices into its award instruments. OTs for prototypes or production are not FAR-based procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or OTs for

Research. OTs for prototypes or production have specific applications and conditions for use (see Appendix C of the Other Transactions Guide linked below). The effort covered under an OT cannot be duplicative of effort being conducted under an existing DoD program. Follow-on production contracts and/or an OT may be awarded to a Prototype

Other Transaction Awardee, if applicable. Please refer to the Office of the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Other Transaction Guide version

2.0 dated July 2023 for additional information. This document, along with other OTA resources, may be accessed at the following link:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/other-policy-areas.html

6. Grants and cooperative agreements for Institutions of Higher Education, nonprofit organizations, foreign organizations, and foreign public entities

Legal instruments which are primary governed by the following:

a. Federal statutes.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/other-policy-areas.html http://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/other-

b. Federal regulations.

c. 2 CFR part 200

d. 2 CFR part 1104.

e. 32 CFR Parts 21, 22, 26, and 28.

f. DoD R&D General Terms and Conditions.

g. Agency Specific Research Terms and Conditions

7. Grants and cooperative agreements for for-profit and nonprofit organizations exempted from Subpart E—Cost Principles of 2 CFR Part 200, are primarily governed by the following:

a. Federal statutes.

b. Federal regulations.

c. 32 CFR Part 34 – Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with For-Profit

Organizations

d. 32 CFR Parts 21, 22, 26, and 28

e. DoD Research and Development General Terms and Conditions

f. Agency-specific Research Terms and Conditions

8. OTs for Research

Legal instruments which are primarily governed by the following:

a. Federal statutes

b. Federal regulations

c. 32 CFR Part 37 – Technology Investment Agreements

d. DoD Research and Development General Terms and Conditions

e. Agency-specific Research Terms and Conditions

f. Office of Secretary of Defense implementation guidance titled Other Transactions (OT)

Guide for Research Projects (July 2023, Version 2)

9. OTs for Prototypes or Production

Legal instruments which are primarily governed by the following:

a. Federal statutes

b. Office of Secretary of Defense implementation guidance titled Other Transactions (OT)

Guide for Prototype Projects (July 2023, Version 2)

The following websites may be accessed to obtain an electronic copy of the governing regulations and terms and conditions:

a. FAR, DFARS, and AFARS: https://www.acquisition.gov

b. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): http://www.ecfr.gov

c. DoD Research and Development General Terms and Conditions:

https://www.nre.navy.mil/work-with-us/manage-your-award/manage-grant-award/grants-terms-conditions

d. Agency-specific Research Terms and Conditions:

https://arl.devcom.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/#terms-and-conditions

C. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants:

Eligible applicants under this BAA include Institutions of higher education (foreign and domestic), nonprofit organizations, and for-profit concerns (large and small businesses). Proposals are encouraged from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (as determined by the Secretary of

Education to meet requirements of Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20

U.S.C. §1061)) and from Minority Institutions defined as institutions “whose enrollment of a single minority or a combination of minorities exceeds 50 percent of the total enrollment.” [20 U.S.C. §

1067k(3) and 10 U.S.C. § 2362]. However, no funds are specifically allocated for HBCU/MI participation.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching:

There is no requirement for cost sharing, matching, or cost participation to be eligible for award under this BAA and cost sharing and matching is not an evaluation factor used under this BAA.

3. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs):

Federally Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDCs), including Department of Energy

National Laboratories, are not eligible to receive awards under this BAA. However, teaming arrangements between FFRDCs and eligible principal offerors are allowed so long as such arrangements are permitted under the sponsoring agreement between the Government and the specific FFRDC, and no funds from the award flow to the FFRDC.

D. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to View Broad Agency Announcement

This BAA may be accessed from the following:

http://www.acquisition.gov/ http://www.ecfr.gov/ https://arl.devcom.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/#terms-and-conditions

1) Grants.gov (www.grants.gov)

2) SAM (https://www.SAM.gov)

3) ARL website (https://arl.devcom.army.mil/collaborate-with-us/)

Amendments, if any, to this BAA will be posted to these websites when they occur. Interested parties are encouraged to periodically check these websites for updates and amendments.

The following information is for those wishing to respond to the BAA:

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

a. General Information

A proposal submitted under this BAA must address unclassified fundamental research.

Proposal submissions will be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with applicable laws and DoD regulations. Applicants are expected to appropriately mark each page of their submission that contains proprietary information. The participating DoD agencies will provide no funding for direct reimbursement of proposal development costs.

Technical and cost proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this BAA will not be returned. It is the policy of participating DoD agencies to treat all proposals as sensitive, competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

Post-Employment Conflict of Interest: There are certain post-employment restrictions on former federal officers and employees, including special government employees (Section 207 of Title 18, U.S.C.). If an applicant believes a conflict of interest may exist, the situation should be discussed with Point of Contact listed in Section G: Agency Contacts, who will then coordinate with appropriate ARO/ARL legal personnel prior to having applicant expend time and effort in preparing a white paper or proposal.

Statement of Disclosure Preference: Please complete ARO Form 52 or 52A stating your preference for release of information contained in your white paper or proposal. Copies of these forms are available at https://arl.devcom.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/

NOTE: A white paper or proposal may be handled for administrative purposes by support contractors. These support contractors are prohibited from competing on BAA proposals and are bound by appropriate non-disclosure requirements.

Equipment: Normally, title to equipment or other tangible property purchased with

Government funds vests with nonprofit institutions of higher education or with nonprofit research organizations if vesting will facilitate scientific research performed for the

Government. For profit organizations are expected to possess the necessary plant and equipment to conduct the proposed research. Deviations may be made on a case-by-case basis to allow commercial organizations to purchase equipment but disposition instructions must be followed.

b. Submission of a White Paper http://www.grants.gov/ https://www.sam.gov/ https://arl.devcom.army.mil/collaborate-with-us/ https://arl.devcom.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/

White Papers – Prospective applicants are strongly encouraged to submit White

Papers. The purpose of requesting a White Paper is to minimize the labor and cost associated with the production of a detailed proposal that has very little chance of being selected for funding. Based on assessment of the White Papers, feedback will be provided to an applicant to enable that applicant to make a determination as to whether they should submit a proposal. If offerors have not submitted White Papers under the BAA, offerors may still submit full proposals for consideration for funding.

White Paper Format and Content:

• White Papers must be submitted electronically to usarmy.rtp.devcom-arl.mesg.qcbox@army.mil in the following format:

• Single PDF file as an email attachment

• Page Size: 8 ½ x 11 inches

• Margins – 1 inch

• Font – No smaller than Times New Roman, 12 point

• Number of Pages – any pages exceeding the page limits described next will not be evaluated.

White Papers must contain the following:

• Title page. The title page should be labeled “QC3 BAA White Paper” and should include the BAA number, proposed title, program goal being addressed, Principal Investigator (PI) with telephone number and email address, and an executive summary. (Not to exceed one page.)

• Expected expenditures and justifications. (Not to exceed one page.)

• Curriculum vitae sketches. (Not to exceed one page per key personnel)

• Technical portion including all references and figures. Introduce the problem to be addressed, briefly survey related work, identify key obstacles, outline the proposed solution and well-defined objective, outline the yearly research plan with milestones, and state the impact if successful. (Not to exceed seven pages.)

c. Preparing a Proposal

After White Paper reviews are completed, interested offerors should submit proposals in accordance with the requirements set forth in this BAA.

This format applies to all proposals submitted via email and via Grants.gov. Offerors' proposals should show the location of each section of the proposal, as well as major subdivisions of the project description.

COVER PAGE:

1. A Cover Page is required. For contract proposals submitted by email, use ARO Form 51.

For all Assistance instruments and contract proposals submitted via Grants.gov, use the SF

424 (R&R) Form. Proposals will not be processed without either: (1) a signed Cover Page, ARO Form 51, or (2) a SF 424 (R&R) Form.

2. Should the project be carried out at a branch campus or other component of the submitting organization, that branch campus or component should be identified in the space provided

(Block 11 on the ARO Form 51 and Block 12 on the SF424 R&R).

3. The title of the proposed project should be brief, scientifically representative, intelligible to a scientifically literate reader, and suitable for use in the public domain.

4. The proposed duration for which support is requested should be consistent with the program duration of forty-eight months.

5. Specification of a desired starting date for the project is important and helpful however, requested effective dates cannot be guaranteed.

6. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 7701, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996

[Section 31001(I)(1), Public Law 104-134] and implemented by 32 CFR 22.420(d), federal agencies shall obtain each awardees’ Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). The TIN is being obtained for purposes of collecting and reporting on any delinquent amounts that may arise out of an awardees’ relationship with the Government.

7. Offerors must provide their organization's Unique Entity Identifier (UIE) (formerly DUNS).

This number is a nine-digit number assigned by Dun and Bradstreet Information Services. See

Section II.D.3 of this BAA for requirements pertaining to the Unique Entity Identifier.

8. Offerors must provide their assigned Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code.

The CAGE Code is a 5-character code assigned and maintained by the Defense Logistics

Service Center (DLSC) to identify a commercial plant or establishment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Use the following Format for the Proposal Table of Contents, Forms are available at

SECTION PAGE NUMBER

Table of Contents A-1

Statement of Disclosure Preference (Form 52 or 52A) B-1

Research & Related Other Project Information B-2

Project Abstract C-1

Project Description (Technical Proposal) D-1 - D-

Biographical Sketch E-1 - E-

Bibliography F-1 - F-

Current and Pending Support G-1 - G-

Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources H-1 - H-

Proposal Budget I-1 - I-

Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money (DD Form 1861) J-1

Appendices K-

List Appendix Items:

This format applies to proposals submitted via email and via Grants.gov. Offerors' proposals should show the location of each section of the proposal, as well as major subdivisions of the project description.

STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE PREFERENCE (FORM 52 OR 52A): Complete and sign

ARO Form 52 (Industrial Contractors) or ARO Form 52A (Educational and Nonprofit

Organizations), form can be found at the following website:

RESEARCH AND RELATED Other Project Information: The form entitled “Research and

Related Other Project Information” found at the following website:

https://arl.devcom.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/, shall be completed and signed by all organizations.

PROJECT ABSTRACT:

1. The Project Abstract shall be completed on the form entitled “Publicly Releasable

Abstract” found at the following website: https://arl.devcom.army.mil/resources/baa-forms/

2. Unless otherwise instructed in this BAA, the Project Abstract shall include a concise statement of work and basic approaches to be used in the proposed effort. The abstract should include a statement of scientific objectives, methods to be employed, and the significance of the proposed effort to the advancement of knowledge.

3. The abstract should be no longer than one (1) page (maximum 4,000 characters).

4. The project abstract shall be marked by the applicant as publicly releasable. By submission of the project abstract, the applicant confirms that the abstract is releasable to the public. For a proposal that results in a grant award, the project abstract will be posted to a searchable website available to the general public to meet the requirements of Section 8123 of the DoD Appropriations Act, 2015. The website address is https://www.dtic.mil/

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL):The technical portion of the proposal shall be no longer than 20 pages including tables and figures, single spaced text, size

12 Times New Roman font with one inch page margins, and shall contain the following:

1. Technical Approach: Introduce the problem to be addressed, survey related work, identify key obstacles, and outline the proposed solution and well-defined objective. Proposals should describe an approach to all technical areas with unambiguous and quantitative milestones. Proposers must justify the utility of the proposed work and highlight its benefits over the current state of the art. Proposals should clearly address the expected key challenges and proposed methods to overcome these difficulties taking into consideration the current state of field. Proposers should set aggressive yearly quantitative milestones that define a path toward the end-of-the-program goals and analyze the impact if successful.

2. Project Schedule, Milestones, and Deliverables: A summary of the schedule of events, milestones, and a detailed description of the results and products to be delivered.

3. Management Approach: A discussion of the overall approach to the management of this effort, including brief discussions of: required facilities; relationships with any subawardees and with other organizations; availability of personnel; and planning, scheduling, and control procedures. A brief description of your organization, including if the offeror has extensive government contracting experience. If this information has been previously provided to the

ARL/ARO, the information need not be provided again. A statement setting forth this condition should be made.

4. The names of other federal, state, local agencies, or other parties receiving the proposal and/or funding the proposed effort. If none, so state. Concurrent or later submission of the proposal to other organizations will not prejudice its review by the ARL/ARO if we are kept informed of the situation.

5. A statement regarding possible impact, if any, of the proposed effort on the environment considering as a minimum its effect upon water, atmosphere, natural resources, human resources, and any other values.

6. The offeror shall provide a statement regarding the use of Class I and Class II ozone-depleting substances. Ozone-depleting substances mean any substance designated as Class I by EPA, including but not limited chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform and any substance designated as Class II by EPA, including but not limited to hydrochlorofluorocarbons. See 40 C.F.R. Part 82 for detailed information. If Class

I or II substances are to be utilized, a list shall be provided as part of the offeror's proposal. If none, so state.

7. The type of additional support, if any, requested (e.g., facilities, equipment, and materials).

Government Furnished Information or Equipment (GFI/GFE) available to all proposers is described in A.2.4.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES:

The R&R Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) form has inputs to collect both

”biosketch” and “current and pending support” by using the common forms located at:

https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/nstc_disclosure.jsp.

1. This Section shall contain the biographical sketches for senior and key personnel only.

a. Primary Principal Investigator: The “Primary” PI provides a single or initial point of communication between the sponsoring agency(s) and the awardee organization(s) about scientific matters. If not otherwise designated, the first PI listed will serve as the “Primary”

PI. This individual can be changed with approval of the agency. The sponsoring agency(s) does not infer any additional scientific stature to this role among collaborating investigators.

https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/nstc_disclosure.jsp

b. Co-Principal Investigators: The individual(s) a research organization designates as having an appropriate level of authority and responsibility for the proper conduct of the research and submission of required reports to the agency. When an organization designates more than one PI, it identifies them as individuals who share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the research, intellectually and logistically. The sponsoring agency(s) does not infer any distinction among multiple PIs.

c. Key personnel: The individual(s) a research organization designates as having a high level of technical expertise in the topics proposed to be researched and who will both play an active role in the research and supervise the work of more junior personnel on a daily basis.

2. The following information is required:

a. Relevant experience and employment history including a description of any prior Federal employment within one year preceding the date of proposal submission.

b. List of up to five (5) publications most closely related to the proposed project and up to five

(5) other significant publications, including those being printed. Patents, copyrights, or software systems developed may be substituted for publications.

c. List of persons, other than those cited in the publications list, who have collaborated on a project or a book, article, report or paper within the last four (4) years. Include pending publications and submissions. Otherwise, state "None."

d. Names of each investigator's own graduate or post graduate advisors and advisees. The information provided in "c" and "d" is used to help identify potential conflicts or bias in the selection of reviewers.

e. The time commitment of each senior or key person to this project.

3. For the personnel categories of postdoctoral associates, other professionals, and students

(research assistants), the proposal may include information on exceptional qualifications of these individuals that merit consideration in the evaluation of the proposal.

4. The biographical sketches are limited to three (3) pages per investigator and other individuals that merit consideration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A bibliography of pertinent literature is required. Citations must be complete (including full name of author(s), title, and location in the literature).

CURRENT AND PENDING SUPPORT:

1. All project support from whatever source must be listed. The list must include all projects requiring a portion of the principal investigator's and other senior personnel's time, even if they receive no salary support from the project(s) including Cooperative Research and Development

Agreements (CRADAs) or other technology transfer agreements with federal labs. Funding provided under any award resulting from this BAA may only be used in support of the effort funded by that award, and not for any other project or purpose.

2. The information should include, as a minimum:

(a) the project/proposal title and brief description,

(b) the name and location of the organization or agency presently funding the work or requested to fund such work,

(c) the award amount or annual dollar volume of the effort,

(d) the period of performance, and

(e) a breakdown of the time required of the principal investigator and/or other senior personnel.

FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER RESOURCES: The offeror should include in the proposal a listing of facilities, equipment, and other resources already available to perform the research proposed.

BUDGET PROPOSAL (including DD Form 1861):

1. Each proposal must contain a budget for each year of support requested and a cumulative budget for the full term of requested support. The budget form (Form 99) may be reproduced as needed. Locally produced versions may be used, but you may not make substitutions in prescribed budget categories nor alter or rearrange the cost categories as they appear on the form. The proposal may request funds under any of the categories listed so long as the item is considered necessary to perform the proposed work and is not precluded by applicable cost principles. Additionally, a budget by major proposed research tasks using the same budget categories must be included.

2. A signed summary budget page must be included. The documentation pages should be titled "Budget Explanation Page" and numbered chronologically starting with the budget form.

The need for each item should be explained clearly.

3. All cost data must be current and complete. Costs proposed must conform to the following principles and procedures:

Educational Institutions: 2 CFR Part 200

Nonprofit Organizations*: 2 CFR Part 200

Commercial Organizations: FAR Part 31, DFARS Part 231, FAR Subsection 15.403-5, and DFARS Subsection 215.403-5.

*For those nonprofit organizations specifically exempt from the provisions of Subpart E of 2

CFR Part 200 (see 2 CFR 200.401(c)), FAR Part 31 and DFARS Part 231 shall apply.

4. Sample itemized budgets and the information they must include for a contract and for grants and cooperative agreements can be found at Section II. H. (Other Information).

Before award it must be established that an approved accounting system and financial management system exist.

APPENDICES: Some situations require that special information and supporting documents be included in the proposal before funding can be approved. Such information and documentation should be included by appendix to the proposal.

(1) To evaluate compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20

U.S.C. A Section 1681 Et. Seq.), the Department of Defense is collecting certain demographic and career information to be able to assess the success rates of women who are proposed for key roles in applications in STEM disciplines. To enable this assessment, each application must include the following forms completed as indicated.

(A) Research and Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) form:

The Degree Type and Degree Year fields on the Research and Related Senior/Key Person

Profile (Expanded) form will be used by DoD as the source for career information. In addition to the required fields on the form, applicants must complete these two fields for all individuals that are identified as having the project role of PD/PI or Co-PD/PI on the form.