SPRINT-_HR001123S0031_Final.docx

HR001123S0031

HR001123S0031

Broad Agency Announcement SPeed and Runway INdependent Technologies (SPRINT) X-Plane Demonstration Project

DARPA TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

HR001123S0031

March 09, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

· Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

· Funding Opportunity Title – SPeed and Runway INdependent Technologies (SPRINT)

· Announcement Type – Initial announcement

· Funding Opportunity Number – HR001123S0031

· Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable

· Dates

· Concise description of the funding opportunity – DARPA TTO is soliciting proposals to design, build, certify and fly an X-Plane to demonstrate enabling technologies and integrated concepts necessary for a transformational combination of aircraft speed and runway independence for the next generation of air mobility platforms. This BAA requires the description of an Operational System (OS) sized to a representative mission to aid in the assessment of the enabling technologies and ensure scalability of these technologies. The BAA also requires the description of a scaled X-Plane demonstrator to validate the enabling technologies at a relevant size and in a flight environment. The goal of SPRINT is to reach first flight of the demonstrator no more than 42 months from contract award. This BAA seeks full proposals for Phase 1 (Phase 1A Base and Phase 1B Option). Phase 1A focuses on conceptual design and requirements/interface definition and includes a Conceptual Design Review. Phase 1B continues maturation of selected X-Plane design(s) through more sophisticated analyses, simulations, risk reduction testing, manufacturing/flight test planning. Phase 1B includes a Preliminary Design Review as well as limited detailed design efforts. Through a limited competition among Phase 1B performers, a single performer/single concept may be selected to perform Phases 2 and 3 of the projects.

· Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The total planned budget for Phase 1A award(s) is on the order of $15M with $75M available for Phase 1 in total.

· Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

· Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or Other Transaction.

· Any cost sharing requirements Encouraged but not required.

· Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001123S0031@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001123S0031

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

Funding Opportunity Description

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

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical area(s): fundamental technologies and integrated concepts that allow an aircraft to cruise at speeds from 400 to 450 Knots , hover in austere environments, and transition between these modes of operation in a stable and time critical manner. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

Project Overview

The SPRINT Demonstrator Project aims to design, build, certify, and fly an X-Plane to demonstrate the key technologies and integrated concepts that enable a transformational combination of aircraft speed and runway independence for future air mobility platforms. The SPRINT X-Plane is not intended as a pre-production aircraft for a specific operational capability but as a proof-of-concept technology demonstrator. The SPRINT X-Plane project will seek to validate technologies and integrated concepts that can be scaled to different size military aircraft, provide these aircraft with the ability to cruise at speeds from 400 to 450 Knots at relevant altitudes and hover in austere environments (near unprepared surfaces). First flight of the X-Plane demonstrator is desired within 42 months of contract award. Proposers are encouraged to improve on this schedule goal consistent with their capabilities. The project is envisioned to include three phases to allow assessment of technical and programmatic progress at relevant intervals.

This BAA encompasses Phase 1A (Base) and Phase 1B (Option):

· Phase 1A: Conceptual Design

· Phase 1B: Preliminary Design, Risk Reduction, Limited Detailed Design A future solicitation may be issued in limited competition among Phase 1B performer(s) to encompass the remaining two Phases:

· Phase 2: Critical Design, Build, and Ground Test

· Phase 3: Flight Testing The SPRINT project is a joint effort with Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command, Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Center (USSOCOM SOF AT&L).

Technical Objectives and Assumptions

The primary technical objectives of the SPRINT X-Plane Demonstrator are aimed at validating the underlying technologies and integrated concepts through flight demonstration:

· SPRINT X-Plane must demonstrate the ability to cruise ≥ 400 KTAS at a relevant altitude and perform basic forward flight maneuvers in a stable manner.

· SPRINT X-Plane must demonstrate the ability to hover and perform hover maneuvers in a stable manner.

· SPRINT X-Plane must demonstrate the ability to transition between hover, forward flight and high-speed forward flight modes in both directions in a stable manner.

· SPRINT X-Plane must demonstrate the ability to generate and distribute power in all modes of flight and during transition between these modes of flight.

More detail on each technical objective and the test conditions used to validate the objective is provided in SPRINT X-Plane Demonstrator and Flight Test Validation section.

The following guidance is provided to assist with the proposed efforts.

In order to ensure the most relevant and mature technologies and integrated concepts are brought forward for design, development and flight testing, the proposer is required to provide the sizing and description of a representative Operational System (OS) and the Demonstrator X-Plane (DX). The Operational System representative mission does not reflect any specific military use case but a consolidation of effects to ensure the underlying technologies are stressed. The Operational System should ensure traceability of the key technologies and integrated concepts, allow assessment of the same for relevant missions/attributes and provide traceability for the SPRINT X-Plane. The OS vehicle is an important part of the proposal but is not part of the scope of work in Phase 1.

The Operational System may include an engine/propulsion system that is envisioned in the future but this fact should be made clear and discussed as part of the OS description. The SPRINT X-Plane must be based on existing engine(s)/propulsion system (i.e., Off-the-shelf). In the case where the propulsion system is considered a key technology for the proposer’s concept, the design should be based on existing components with no major development needed. This is meant to ensure the engine or propulsion system development does not delay the overall X-Plane flight demonstration. The Government will not be providing engines as Government furnished equipment (GFE).

One goal of the SPRINT X-Plane project is to provide enabling technologies and integrated concepts that allow the aircraft to provide runway independent operations. Runway independent operations are envisioned as the ability to operate and hover near unprepared surfaces, such as sections of damaged runways, remote highways/roadways, unprepared fields with dry grass, parking lots, etc. Runway independent operations are transient operations not meant for continuous operations in one particular spot. Runway independent operations are still meant to be compatible with personnel operations from or near the aircraft. There is no disk loading, downwash or surface hardness limit set for the proposal. The proposer must provide an understanding of how the proposed OS design meets this goal of runway independence.

Airworthiness certification of the X-Plane will occur in Phase 2; however, design and test planning considerations may be applicable to this BAA. Performers are expected to complete all safety/airworthiness reviews and obtain airworthiness certification prior to first flight. A systematic airworthiness approach applicable to experimental aircraft will be followed. This will require participation of the performer, the DARPA Government team, and a test range. The preferred airworthiness process is envisioned to be based on a DARPA flight release tailored for an experimental aircraft based on MIL-HDBK-516C. Additional options for flight release through military or commercial airworthiness processes will be considered and should be described in the proposal. It is anticipated that flight-testing will be conducted in restricted airspace and that a flight termination system may be required if unmanned.

Operational System (OS) and Representative Sizing Mission

Proposers are required to size/synthesize an Operational System based on the following representative mission profile (Table 1) and speed/payload/cargo space specifications. The OS vehicle performance and attributes will be used to assess the key technologies and integrated concepts’ ability to meet the project goals.

VMCP: ≥ 400 KTAS (Threshold); ≥ 450 KTAS (Objective) at an altitude between 15,000 and 30,000 feet Payload: 5,000 lbs.

Notional Cargo Bay: Length: 30ft, Width: 8.0 ft, Height: 7 ft for small wheeled vehicles or two half height 463 pallets

Table 1. Representative Mission Profile

In addition to basic design and performance information the proposer will further highlight the capabilities of the technologies/integrated concept by discussing the following attributes:

· Short Take-off and Landing Capability – Describe ability to take-off and/or land in 300 feet, describe payload range effects or other relevant performance impacts.

· Runway Independent Operations in Austere Environments – Discuss impact of downwash/outwash and engine exhaust environment on operations in austere environments. Discussion should include vertical take-off, hover operations, personnel deployment from aircraft, personnel on the ground.

· Engine Out Operability – Describe advantages or disadvantages of fundamental technologies or integrated concept to land after a loss of power in a vertical mode of operation.

· Mission Applicability – Describe OS design’s ability to conduct infiltration/exfiltration, agile tactical airlift, and aeromedical evacuation missions from a cargo space viewpoint, (i.e., how do the fundamental technologies or integrated concept impact cargo space available).

· Aerial Refueling – Describe whether the fundamental technologies or integrated concept limit aerial refueling capability and efficiency.

· Maneuverability/Nap of the Earth Controllability – Describe advantages or disadvantages of the fundamental technologies or integrated concept ability to maneuver during slow or hover operations, vertical rate of climb or control during nap-of-the-earth operations (comparison to legacy platforms is useful).

SPRINT X-Plane Demonstrator and Flight Test Validation

The goal of the SPRINT X-Plane demonstrator is to prove the primary technical objectives presented above. The SPRINT X-Plane will be traceable to the representative Operational System such that the same enabling technologies and integrated concept drive the configurations. A dedicated sizing mission for the SPRINT X-Plane is not specified. This allows the proposer the largest design space to ensure the technologies are built and flight tested at the appropriate scale within the cost, schedule and propulsion constraints. The SPRINT X-Plane is anticipated to weigh between 8,000 and 15,000 lbs. based on previous studies and market research but this is not limiting. The decision to have the SPRINT X-Plane as manned, unmanned, optionally piloted, etc. is left to the proposer to allow the most design latitude and capability familiar to the proposer.

The X-Plane will have the following attributes to assist with sizing and meeting technical objectives:

· Sustained flight speed ≥ 400 KTAS at an altitude between 15,000 and 30,000 feet

· Useful payload of ≥ 1000 lbs. in mainly a single dedicated space reserved for flight test instrumentation/avionics or residual capability

The SPRINT X-Plane is expected to have useable flight hours left after the DARPA flight demonstration and will likely transition to SOCOM for further evaluation. This evaluation may include integration of an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)a mission package. The X-Plane should have allocations for space, weight and power for the missionISR package; however, any integration is not part of this solicitation.

The X-Plane will have the following attributes to provide an effective and efficient flight test program:

· Flight test endurance ≥ 1.5 hrs.

· Aircraft flight radius of ≥ 200 nm

The demonstrator aircraft should be designed with sufficient load margins and be able to execute maneuvers from -0.5g to 2.0g at various flight conditions. The design life of the X-Plane should be 500 hours with the DARPA demonstration flight hours expected to be < 200 hours. The design should accept a 12 foot per second sink rate with no damage.

A table with representative flight test criteria is provided below to assist in understanding the X-Plane demonstration points and full breadth of the flight program:

Table 3. Sample Flight Test Approach Program Plan and Risk Management Approach

(U) The SPRINT X-Plane Demonstrator Project is envisioned to include three phases to allow assessment of technical and programmatic progress at relevant intervals as shown in the notional schedules in Figure 1. The schedules shown are notional and no anticipated number of awards is implied.

This BAA encompasses Phase 1A (Base) and Phase 1B (Option):

· Phase 1A: Conceptual Design

· Phase 1B: Preliminary Design, Risk Reduction, Limited Detailed Design A future solicitation may be issued in limited competition among Phase 1B performers to encompass the remaining two Phases:

· Phase 2: Critical Design, Build, and Ground Test

· Phase 3: Flight Testing

Figure 1. SPRINT X-Plane Demonstrator Project Notional Schedules

This BAA solicits detailed proposals for the entirety of Phase 1; however, proposed performer teams are expected to be capable of completing all three phases of the project.

Phase 1A is six months in duration and must include a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR). Multiple performers are anticipated in Phase 1A to conduct conceptual design and analysis of the X-Plane, define requirements and interfaces, conduct simulations and possible component/ subsystem testing. At the end of Phase 1A, a down-select will occur based on technical progress and available resources. Selected performer(s) will proceed with preliminary design under the Phase 1B Option.

Phase 1B, Preliminary Design, Risk Reduction and Limited Detailed Design: Performer(s) will mature the X-Plane design through more sophisticated analyses, simulations, component testing, subsystem testing, manufacturing planning and flight test planning resulting in a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). One month after PDR, the performer(s) will provide the Phase 2 and 3 proposals. The performer(s) will continue to mature the PDR design through limited detail design work while proposal evaluation and contracting efforts continue in the background. A Go/No-Go Decision will be made before proceeding to Phases 2/3 based on design maturity shown at PDR, confidence in meeting project objectives within cost/schedule constraints as provided in Phase 2/3 proposals, and funding availability. Only one performer (performer team) is anticipated to proceed to Phase 2/3.

The remaining two phases that may be solicited via a limited competition among Phase 1B performers are summarized as follows:

Phase 2 Critical Design, Build, and Ground Test. Phase 2 effort includes critical design of the air vehicle and ground station (if necessary); control law development; flight and ground station software development and certification; aircraft manufacturing, assembly and installation; ground station build; air system ground testing, system checkout and airworthiness certification. A Critical Design Review (CDR) ensures the X-Plane design will meet technical objectives and is mature enough to initiate fabrication/assembly of the aircraft. In addition to CDR, a Manufacturing Readiness Review (MRR), Ground Test Readiness Review (GTR), Airworthiness Certification Approval and Shipment Readiness Review will be conducted to confirm progress towards First Flight Readiness Review (FFRR) at the beginning of Phase 3.

Upon successful completion of the ground test and airworthiness certification activities in Phase 2, the project will proceed to Phase 3 during which the aircraft will be flight tested to explicitly validate the key technologies and integrated concept. First Flight Readiness Review will be completed to obtain the necessary flight clearances and range safety approvals prior to proceeding into the flight test campaign. Specific performance data will be gathered to establish the flight speed capabilities of the aircraft and to evaluate success in meeting all of the project’s technical objectives. Ground and flight-testing will take place at a suitable test facility (to be determined).

Program Milestone Description

The Performer will execute a CoDR and PDR with content checklists and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard for appropriate application to a technology demonstration project. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and achievements. The tailored CoDR and PDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored PDR content checklists, will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

Conceptual Design Review

The objective of this review is to show the X-Plane system design supports the validation of technical objectives, the X-Plane integrated concept and technology implementation maintains traceability to the OS vehicle, the system design and development requirements are complete and the preliminary system interfaces are defined. The review will form the basis for deriving the preliminary design, allow DARPA to assess the performer’s project approach and progress, and allow DARPA an opportunity to provide guidance. Those performer(s) selected for continued development are expected to proceed to preliminary design.

Minimum information to be provided:

· X-Plane system (aircraft and ground system if applicable) conceptual design is complete and feasible through initial analysis.

· X-Plane enabling technologies for hover, forward flight, and transition are integrated.

· X-Plane baseline approach to flight control for each mode of flight is identified.

· X-Plane engine/propulsion system is complete and feasible through initial analysis

· X-Plane choice of operation (manned, unmanned, level of autonomy) is identified and integrated.

· X-Plane design analysis and data from all design disciplines, to support the selected final design.

· Projected performance capabilities against desired attributes.

· Release the final conceptual design drawing package (3-view, inboard profiles).

· Requirements are complete and preliminary interfaces are defined.

· A software development plan, including verification and validation approach, is complete.

· Initial Risk Register for technical and project risks and mitigation plans.

· Updated project schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to flight test program within established schedule metrics.

· Preliminary airworthiness approach completed in consultation with the Government.

Preliminary Design Review

The objective of PDR is to demonstrate that the preliminary design meets all system requirements with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints of the project. Results of smaller subscale tests of key technologies will be completed and analyzed. Results using more sophisticated/higher-order computational methods will be applied to define and evaluate the subsystems, and all sizing studies and technology trade analyses will be completed and data presented for discussion. The PDR will assess technical and programmatic products using results from simulations and component testing. PDR will establish the basis for proceeding with the subsequent detailed design phase of the project. It will demonstrate that all system interfaces have been identified and the paths for design, fabrication, and verification to be performed during Phase 2 are appropriately defined.

Minimum information to be provided:

· Requirements are understood and complete, and a verification matrix established.

· External and internal interfaces for mechanical, electric, signals established and documented.

· X-Plane preliminary design is complete to the subsystem/configuration item level, PDR requirements are traceable to system-level requirements, and the design closes around documented requirements and adequately demonstrates that performance achieves X-Plane technical objectives and attributes. Space, weight, and power (SWaP) set asides for residual capability incorporated.

· A software development plan with functions, processes and metrics to measure progress is complete.

· Updated technical and project risks and mitigation plans support Phase 2 execution.

· Draft Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) shows analysis, simulation, ground testing plan that supports X-Plane design, build and certification in Phases 2 and 3.

· Draft flight test plans define test segment objectives and expected results that will validate enabling technologies and integrated concept.

· Revised Bill of Material based on preliminary design is documented and supports X-Plane design, build and certification in Phases 2 and 3.

· Updated project schedule to include testing and analysis timelines with feasible path to flight test program within established schedule metrics.

· Final airworthiness approach completed in consultation with the Government.

Government Management Approach and Operations

The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the project’s technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government Project Office is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which will be augmented by Government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from multiple organizations to assist with project execution. Project execution should expect Government personnel to integrate with the performer, subcontractor and vendor team to limit the number of formal deliverables or meetings. Government technical teams are expected to participate in performer collaborative meetings and teleconferences, review documentation generated as part of normal design and development efforts and visit the prime and subcontractor locations to enhance collaboration. The Government also anticipates creating a secure SharePoint site (or equivalent) for gathering project technical information and facilitating sharing of information. Only a minimum of formal meetings are anticipated, including:

· Bi-weekly project management tag-ups (virtual/teleconference).

· Technical Interchange Meetings on specific areas of interest or substantial decisions as needed (teleconference or in-person).

· Quarterly Project Management Reviews – technical, schedule and financial overview to align project performance with Government team expectations (in-person at performer site).

Award Information

General Award Information

This BAA solicits proposals only for Phase 1A (Base Period) and Phase 1B (Option Period). Multiple awards are anticipated for Phase 1A. The resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the abstracts/proposals received and the availability of funds. Total Phase 1A funding is on the order of $15M and expected to be completed in 6 months. Total Phase 1B funding is on the order of $60M is expected to nominally take 12-15 months, but the schedule after Phase 1A is at the discretion of the proposer.

Proposer teams are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed ten (10) pages. The maximum page count excludes the cover page administrative data in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section I, and official transmittal letter, but does include any figures, tables, and charts. An official transmittal letter is not required. Upon review of the abstracts, proposers will be encouraged or discouraged to submit a full proposal for Phase 1.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section IV.B.3.d “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposals from award consideration, should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. 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, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this solicitation if: (1) that participant in the OT, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT, successfully completed the entire prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research

Proposals and Awards

Proposers shall prepare full proposals in accordance with the proposal format instructions detailed under Section IV to address Phase 1 (including options). DARPA requires that Phase 1 proposals include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for Phase 2. This ROM will be considered preliminary and is for planning purposes only. It will not be considered as part of the evaluation process.

Proposal responses to both Phase 1A and Phase 1B of this effort are expected to be highly detailed, complete, and accurate in all aspects. Proposals should be based on a single OS concept that is well defined, detailed and includes initial substantiation and justification of technologies. If a proposer has multiple sets of enabling technology and integrated concepts for consideration, then a separate full proposal should be submitted for each concept.

It is anticipated that the Government will request proposals for Phase 2 with a Phase 3 Option during Phase 1 Option 1. Only those performers whose Phase 1 Option 1 is exercised will be invited to submit a Phase 2 and Phase 3 Option proposal.

Submission of updated full proposals for future phases is optional and associated proposal preparation costs will not be reimbursed under Phase 1 awards. Performers who choose not to submit an updated full proposal for future phases will not be considered for future awards. To continue the program beyond the Phase 1 contract is the decision of the Government and will be based on Phase 1 results, Government need, the availability of funds, the determination that performers have made sufficient progress towards meeting program performance objectives, maturing the required technologies and addressing risks, and scientific review of the proposals. Evaluations of updated full proposals for future phases will be based on evaluation criteria to be specified in the proposal request and will include consideration of Phase 1 performance.

Fundamental Research

It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines fundamental research as follows:

‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.

As of the date of publication of this solicitation, the Government expects that program goals as described herein either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research. In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

Eligibility Information

Responsible Sources

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of this research for exclusive competition among these entities.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government Entities

FFRDCs FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this solicitation in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

All proposers are expected to address transition; transition is part of the evaluation criteria in Section V.A. However, given their special status, FFRDCs should describe how and when a proposed technology/system will transition to which non-FFRDC organization(s).

Government Entities Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government Entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

Authority and Eligibility At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 4892 may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and Government Entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

1. Non-U.S. Organizations and/or Individuals

Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the solicitation. The disclosure must include the proposer’s, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposer’s judgment and to prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer. Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.

If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the proposal must include:

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

The prime contract number;

Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

Government Procedures In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the solicitation evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.

If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

Cost Sharing/Matching

Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.

For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype, see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

Application and Submission Information

Address to Request Application Package

This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the announcement found at https://sam.gov/ or https://www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.

Content and Form of Application Submission

All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with type not smaller than 12-point font. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables, and charts. All hard copies must be on 8½ inch by 11-inch paper with 1” margins. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.

Abstract Format

Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal. Abstracts should follow the same general format as described for proposals (see Section IV.B.2, “Proposal Format”) but include ONLY Sections I and II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed 10 pages. The maximum page count excludes the cover page in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section I, and official transmittal letter but does include any figures, tables, and charts. An official transmittal letter is not required.

Abstract Content

Abstracts should provide a preliminary overview of the Operational System and the proposed SPRINT X-Plane Demonstrator solution. Section II of Volume 1 Technical and Management Proposal should be supplemented with the following data:

· Top-level description of analytical and test activities anticipated to complete in Phase 1.

· Top-level description of recent analytical and test activities completed by proposer team that matures the specific technologies and integrated concept.

· Identification of major risks and/or challenges for the SPRINT project.

· Top-level description of the manufacturing/airworthiness strategy to support design, manufacturing, and testing of proposed concept.

· Relevant facilities (proposer and/or potential teaming partners) expected to complete the design, build, certify and fly X-Plane project.

Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included into a single proposal. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: 1) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal and 2) Volume II, Cost Proposal. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 45 pages. Bracketed numbers (e.g., {5}) before each section denote recommended page limits.

Ensure that each section provides the detailed discussion of the proposed work necessary to enable an in-depth review of the specific technical and managerial issues. Specific attention must be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to DARPA.

NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be rejected without further review.

a) Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative

(a) Cover Sheet to include:

(1) BAA number (HR001123S0031);

(2) Technical area;

(3) Lead Organization submitting proposal;

(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE BUSINESS,” “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS,” “HBCU,” “MI,” “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”

(5) Proposer’s reference number (if any);

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

(7) Proposal title;

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

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

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

(11) Date proposal was submitted.

(b) Official transmittal letter

Section II: Summary of Proposal {5}

This section should provide a concise overview of the representative Operational System and the proposed SPRINT X-Plane demonstrator, including a summary of the designs, technical approach and traceability/scalability of enabling technologies and integrated concept.

A. Vehicle Graphics: A single-page of figures or diagrams showing the layout of the representative OS and proposed X-Plane vehicle, highlighting key technologies and design features, e.g., isometric, cut-away, or three-view drawing with labels.

B. Technology and Concept Description: Provide a basic description of the X-Plane configuration and enabling technologies along with a description of the chosen propulsion system. Briefly describe the OS system enabling technologies and integrated concept, OS vehicle performance and attributes, discuss scalability of the underlying technology, discuss how the X-Plane maintains traceability and achieves primary technical objectives. Provide a table of the OS vehicle’s estimated performance capabilities with respect to the representative mission and attributes as well as the X-Plane performance for an effective and efficient flight test program.

C. Cost/Schedule: Top level cost for the proposed research and development, including estimates of cost for Phase 1 and ROM Cost for Phase 2 of the effort broken out by the prime and major subcontractors, total cost and company cost share, if applicable. The summary should also include a top-level schedule that outlines the proposer’s overall approach to executing proposed system development through demonstration testing.

D. Team: A clearly defined organization chart for the project team which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team members; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the tasking of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; (5) the principal investigator (PI), co-PI, and program manager (if applicable) for each team member to include subcontractor’s PI, co-PI, and program manager; and (6) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year. DARPA requires key personnel identified in the proposal to be assigned as proposed and the resulting contract/agreement will indicate no substitution shall be made without prior approval of the Government.

E. {No page limit} Rights Assertion: Proposers responding to this BAA must submit a separate list of all technical data or computer software that will be furnished to the Government with other than unlimited rights. The Government will assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property restrictions in their proposals. Include in this section all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. For forms to be completed regarding intellectual property, see Section IV.B.3.i of this BAA. There will be no page limit for the listed forms.

F. Deliverables: Technical deliverables, such as reports, technical design reviews, hardware deliveries, etc.

Note: The Summary of Proposal should not have any unique information not contained in the Detailed Proposal Information.

Section III: Detailed Proposal Information

A. {25} Technology and Concept Innovation: Detailed description and technical substantiation of the enabling technologies and integrated concept as envisioned in the Operational System and the proposed SPRINT X-Plane scaled demonstrator that validates those technologies and concept. Describe in detail the OS vehicle, the OS vehicle performance and attributes, detailed analyses that substantiate the OS vehicle performance and capabilities. This is the proposer’s opportunity to explain how the proposed technologies and concept provide the transformational combination of aircraft speed and runway independence as well as other benefits derived from this configuration including scalability. Proposer should also provide a detailed description of the X-Plane configuration and enabling technologies along with a description of the chosen propulsion system. Discuss how the X-Plane maintains traceability and achieves primary technical objectives. Provide X-Plane performance for an effective and efficient flight test program. Provide substantiating data for X-Plane performance and attributes. The use of figures and charts is encouraged, but they must be relevant and referred to in the text of the proposal.

Specifically, this section should include for the OS and the X-Plane (where applicable):

· 3-view drawings with dimensions and key sizing parameters

· Weight statements per SAWE RP8A

· All engine performance parameters including fuel burn per flight segment

· Power required versus speed

· Speeds for best endurance, maximum range and maximum sustained

· Payload-range curves

· Weight,…