03_DET_FY16-BAA_W900KK-16-R-0031.pdf

U.S. ARMY

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE for

SIMULATION, TRAINING & INSTRUMENTATION

DIRECTED ENERGY TEST SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY (DET S&T)

Test Technology Area (TTA)

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

W900KK-16-R-0031

Note: This Broad Agency Announcement for FY16 is considered out-of-cycle. Use out-of-cycle instructions provided herein.

ISSUE DATE: 29 January 2016 EXPIRATION DATE: 30 September 2021

THIS BAA SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL SUPERSEDED OR EXPIRED

i

CONTENTS

PART I – GENERAL INFORMATION

Introduction

Project Characteristics

Transition Partners

Teaming

Award Information

Eligibility

Points of Contact

PART II – RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS

High Power Microwave (HPM)

High Energy Laser (HEL)

Other Test Technology

PART III - WHITE PAPER AND PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Security and Proprietary Issues

White Paper Instructions

Proposal Instructions

Submission Information

PART IV – WHITE PAPER REVIEW AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION

PART V – AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

Selection Notices

Email Addresses

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Reporting

Government Furnished Equipment

Army Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions

PART VI – OTHER INFORMATION

Disclosure of White Paper and Proposal Information

Government Data Rights

Publication Requirements and Acknowledgement

Representations and Certifications ii

Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information

Subcontracting Plan

Enclosure 1 – RDT&E Budget Activity 3 Definition

Enclosure 2 - Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Definitions

ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

PART I – GENERAL INFORMATION

Introduction

The U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation/Test Resource Management Center (DT&E/TRMC), is issuing this broad agency announcement (BAA) to seek white papers and proposals under the Test and Evaluation / Science and Technology (T&E/S&T) Program.

This BAA is issued to satisfy the TRMC T&E/S&T requirement for the Test Technology Area (TTA) named on the cover page and is intended to benefit all military services under the Department of Defense (DoD). This BAA represents one of several in support of the T&E/S&T Program’s TTAs. Each TTA supports advanced technology development, demonstration, and transition to address DoD T&E needs.

The topics of interest in this BAA are based upon current and projected T&E/S&T gaps.

The goal is to develop the T&E tools needed to assess a system’s readiness for fielding, not the end-item itself. The types of testing for which there may exist technology shortfalls covered by this announcement are Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E), Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), and Live-Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E).

This BAA is issued under the provisions of paragraphs 6.102(d)(2) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and 35.016 which provide for the competitive selection of research and development (R&D) efforts not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. Contracts based on responses to this BAA are considered the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the related provisions of Public Law 98-369, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and any amendments.

This BAA consists of six parts as follows:

Part 1 - General Information Part II - Research and Technology Development Interests Part III - White Paper and Proposal Instructions Part IV - White Paper Review and Proposal Evaluation Part V - Award Administration Information Part VI - Other Information

This BAA shall remain in effect until 30 September 2021 or until superseded.

PEO STRI contracts with educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, Government agencies, and private industry for R&D in those areas of interest covered in Part II.

Awards resulting from this announcement may take the form of a contract or intra-governmental agreement.

The TRMC T&E/S&T Program is a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Budget Activity 3, Advanced Technology Development program (see Enclosure 1 for the definition for RDT&E Budget Activity 3). The TRMC T&E/S&T Program sponsors projects with technology readiness levels (TRLs) 3-6 (see Enclosure 2 for TRL definitions) and does not sponsor basic/fundamental or applied research (Budget Activity 1 or 2 funding). The T&E/S&T Program will fund high-risk, high-payoff technologies that can be matured and transitioned from the laboratory setting to DoD military test ranges for follow-on engineering development beyond TRL 6 (follow-on development work is funded by other DoD programs).

To formulate and prioritize T&E needs, the TTA uses an expert working group (WG), consisting of technology developers, T&E personnel, and other technology area subject matter experts, who work for one of the three Services (Army, Navy, or Air Force) or for other Government organizations. The WG frames the identified T&E needs into topics of interest for research and technology development listed in Part II of this BAA. As new requirements emerge and technology evolves, the topics of interest are updated regularly to address the highest priorities. Each year of the BAA’s duration, the Government may amend it with a new list of topics. Depending on funding availability, the Government may designate an amendment as “in-cycle” or “out-of-cycle”. If funding is limited for a particular fiscal year (FY), the Government will designate the BAA as “out-of-cycle”. Otherwise, the designation is “in-cycle”. In-cycle announcements require adherence in meeting two specific deadlines via a two-step approach. The first deadline requires submission of a white paper that will be evaluated for sufficient interest to merit a formal proposal. If there is sufficient interest in a white paper, the contracting officer will request a formal proposal within another specified deadline in order to align with the available budget cycle funding. Out-of-cycle refers to white papers submitted after the in-cycle deadline or in years where there are no deadlines.

The key dates for this BAA are provided later within this section.

Those contemplating submission of a white paper during an in-cycle process are highly encouraged to contact the executing agent (EA)/technical point of contact (TPOC) listed on this BAA to determine the level of interest to pursue the intended R&D effort and if funding may be available. This process is designed to limit expenditure of efforts and resources to prepare and review white papers (and eventually proposals) for projects that may have little or no opportunity to be funded.

For out-of-cycle consideration, interested parties must contact the EA/TPOC as to the level of interest before submitting a white paper. Prospective offerors should note that primary T&E/S&T development consideration shall be given to in-cycle submissions over out-of-cycle submissions should additional funds be made available. Submission timeframes will be identified after interest is confirmed.

Dialog with the EA/TPOC is limited to the timeline prior to white paper submission.

Once a white paper has been submitted, the open window for technical dialog ends and further communication with the Government shall be through the U.S. ARMY Contracting Command – Orlando (ACC-Orlando).

Topics of potential technology development under this BAA follow in Part II. These topics of interest are meant to illustrate the scope of this BAA. This list is not meant to preclude submission in other areas considered by the offeror to have a high probability of interest to the test community.

Commercialization potential is not relevant and the funding for projects that may be awarded within this BAA is not limited to any specific amount.

Multiple awards are possible. The total number of awards under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. White papers and proposals are not reviewed, compared, or evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in response to a common statement of work. No portion of this BAA is set-aside for Government, small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, historically black colleges and universities or minority institutions. Awards based on responses to this BAA are considered the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with FAR 6.102(d)(2) and the related provisions of Public Law 98-369, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and any amendments.

The Government reserves the right to the following actions:

1. To select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this BAA.

2. To make awards without discussions, but will conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary.

3. To accept proposals in their entirety or to select applicable portions of the proposed projects for award. In the event that the Government selects only portions of the proposed project, negotiations may be opened with that offeror.

4. To request any additional documentation once it makes the award instrument determination.

5. To remove projects from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and cost/price within a reasonable time or the offeror fails to timely provide requested information.

6. To determine if there is sufficient funding to warrant an in-cycle process for a given FY.

Timelines, due dates, and special process requirements for future Government FY funding eligibility will be published as modifications to this announcement.

Project Characteristics

All submissions must address two essential characteristics:

1. T&E Need: There must be a need to measure or assess performance of a DoD military capability, system, prototype, or concept beyond the current T&E capability.

2. S&T Challenge: The candidate project should develop one or more specific innovations that are distinct from engineering efforts to improve an existing capability. In most cases, the candidate project should involve doing something not possible today, i.e., they result in an invention that improves testing. Offers that seek to satisfy a test capability requirement by simply combining existing technologies or commercial off-the-shelf products are considered engineering projects and will not be considered for T&E/S&T funding.

Submissions will be considered non-responsive if they do not identify the T&E technology shortfall and do not clearly justify appropriate TRL advancement, i.e., represent an S&T challenge.

Projects should have a technical approach with a sound development strategy (approach to the problem) and a viable phasing strategy (segmentation of the approach).

Phases for Project Management Facilitation:

Projects are structured into phases to provide a contractual mechanism for managing risk for the Government by segmenting the project into component efforts that are usually successive steps, but also may include parallel efforts. Projects may be organized into any number of phases. Phases are used to assess progress and support decisions to either continue or suspend further investment, performed by monitoring and addressing defined ‘exit criteria’ that demonstrate readiness to progress to successive phases. End of phases are defined primarily upon reaching a target in technology development for the specific project. Thirty to 45 days before the end of each phase, a decision meeting is held between the Government and the principal investigator (PI) to assess the progress in achieving the specified objectives/exit criteria and evaluate whether the project should progress. After this decision meeting, the contracts office will inform the PI of the Government’s intent to proceed with the project.

Phases should not be defined based on calendar years or fiscal years. Instead, a phase should be an encapsulated work effort with defined objectives, tasks, deliverables, and exit criteria for a duration adequate for successful execution. An offeror may be requested to divide any proposed phase of long duration (e.g., longer than 18 months) into multiple, shorter phases. While a project can be segmented into any number of phases, projects typically progress through three major development stages – first focus on requirements and design trade-offs, then focus on core development of the technology, and then focus on technology transition.

Concept Exploration Stage At the initiation of the project, the majority of effort usually focuses on discerning and refining technical requirements, experimenting with technology alternatives, developing models and simulations, and performing trade-space assessments. In the Concept Exploration Stage, the goal is to complete (or clarify) the system design and increase the confidence in the technology development to be pursued. Normally, the technical efforts in this stage include maturing the technology from TRL 3 to TRL 4. Critical components and sub-components of the design with derived technical requirements should be identified, as well as mitigation options or potential alternative solutions. If the technology development is hardware-centric, in the Concept Exploration Stage, a ‘breadboard’ or system components may be developed and tested in a laboratory. If the technology development is more software-centric, use case analyses may be performed and an initial spiral executed to develop an early prototype. Typically, phases in the Concept Exploration Stage are shorter in duration, ranging from 5 to 18 months.

Engineering, Integration, & Experimentation Stage The Engineering, Integration, & Experimentation Stage is typically when the majority of the technology development is performed, with a goal to develop a working prototype that could demonstrate utility to DoD testing. Normally, the technical efforts in this stage include maturing the technology from TRL 4 to TRL 5. If the technology development is hardware-centric, in the Engineering, Integration, & Experimentation Stage, a ‘brassboard’ may be fabricated after critical design reviews, to demonstrate the performance of the technology, with components and sub-components integrated into a working system. If the technology development is more software-centric, multiple software development spirals or software scrums could be executed with regular in-progress reviews and early beta-testing. Typically, Engineering, Integration, & Experimentation involves the most significant amount of effort and takes the longest period of time of the three stages. Because of this duration, it is often necessary to implement multiple phases for risk management.

Technology Characterization & Transition Stage The majority of effort in the final stage usually focuses on measuring how well the technology performs, particularly addressing a problem or working in an environment that is specifically germane to the potential transition partners for the technology development. In the Technology Characterization & Transition Stage, the goal is to demonstrate the technology in a relevant environment to enable the technology to transition and ultimately be used to support DoD T&E. Normally, the technical efforts in this stage include maturing the technology from TRL 5 to TRL 6. If the technology development is hardware-centric, a prototype would be fabricated that satisfies all electrical and mechanical form, fit, and function requirements, hardened to the degree necessary to perform in the required test environment. Measurements would be made to verify that the values of important parameters meet or exceed the project’s technical objectives and specifications. If the technology development is more software-centric, a final prototype would be delivered that satisfies all critical performance requirements, with suitable documentation to be tested by transition partners. If the technology development directly integrates with other DoD test infrastructure, the prototype should be compliant with the Test and Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) standard, to ease integration and technology transition. Typically, phases in the Technology Characterization & Transition Stage are shorter in duration, ranging from 6 to 18 months.

Relationship between phases and stages:

Phases are the significant unit of a project, as all projects are organized into phases.

Phases are synonymous with contract phases, with the first phase of the contract referred to as the “Base” and subsequent phases referred to as “Options”. From a contractual standpoint, all activities will be executed in the terms of a phase.

Stages are conceptual – not contractual – and provide a means for program management to articulate overall technology maturity of effort (i.e., TRL 3-4, TRL 4-5, TRL 5-6). Questions the Government asks about a technology at TRL 3-4 will often be different than the questions regarding a technology at TRL 5-6. Stages are worthwhile to understand as the Government focus on a project will shift as a project evolves from concept exploration, to development, to transition. From a program management standpoint, transition partners will be identified prior to the Technology Characterization & Transition stage so that the technology is demonstrated in an environment relevant to the technology transition partner.

To be clear, white papers and proposals should be submitted in terms of phases – not stages.

Considerations for phase variations:

While a project may be structured very straightforward and involve maturing a single technology through progressive phases, offerors may propose more complex phase arrangements, when warranted by the proposed technical approach. Two examples of technical approaches where more complex phase arrangements may be more ideal include:

1. Pursuing Multiple Alternative Approaches within a Project. If the offeror proposes studying and pursuing different technical approaches (or paths), the offer must include cost estimates and schedules for each technical approach for each phase. An offer may identify a need to investigate multiple candidate paths within a phase to determine which technical approach to pursue in subsequent phases. For example, the offer may propose considering technical approach A and technical approach B in Phase 1 and then pursuing only either approach A or approach B in Phase 2 and beyond. In this example, the offer must include estimates for Phase 2A and Phase 2B (as well as any successive phases), with an understanding that only one path will be implemented.

2. Bundling Multiple Technology Developments within a Project. If the offeror proposes to address multiple test technology shortfalls, phasing should be used to segment the work for each effort. Depending upon the nature of the development, the phasing could be arranged sequentially or in parallel (e.g., Phase 2A would address test technology shortfall ‘A’ and Phase 2B would address test technology shortfall ‘B’, both occurring concurrently.).

ACC-Orlando WILL NOT CONSIDER any unpriced phases/options proposed under this BAA.

Contract (or Agreement) Base award with Options for Execution:

Every project initiated through this BAA shall be awarded with Phase 1 as the base contract (or award) period. Each subsequent phase is exercised as an option only after the decision is made to continue the project (typically after each phase decision meeting discussed above). Recognize that a correlated phase/option references the same period of performance (POP), i.e., the POP for Option1 is the same as Phase 2.

Projects shall have no gaps/discontinuity in POP between successive phases/options.

Offerors should be aware that specifications for performance in exit criteria are goals and should not be construed as key performance parameters and performance specifications as associated with engineering development work. The objectives to advance technology may still be achieved if the specification values are approached, or if some of the desired parameters are not met. Often with S&T efforts, not reaching phase exit criteria is not the fault of the developer, but rather due to technology limitations or its feasibility to be applied to T&E use, i.e., cannot mature to TRL 6.

Offerors should be aware that S&T/RDT&E-funded contracts (Budget Activity 3) are not required to be registered and report contractor performance into the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System. Nonetheless, the phase decision to execute the next option is at the sole discretion of the Government and will include various factors in addition to exit criteria.

Although the intent is to execute the project to a transitioned deliverable, the Government may make a decision not to exercise an option regardless of achieving the phase exit criteria. The EA manages a portfolio of multi-year, multi-phased advanced test technology development projects that span a full spectrum of T&E needs.

Continually aligning his/her portfolio to address the test community’s highest priority needs, the EA may be required to re-evaluate investments regardless of successful individual project performance.

Transition Partners

Transition partners are generally DoD T&E organizations, usually a major range and test facility base (MRTFB). Early on in the project, the EA will work with the PI to identify transition partner(s) who can accept and use the end product(s). Transition partners can help clarify the ultimate benefit a particular technology can provide the test community, particularly when demonstrating and characterizing the performance of the technology in a relevant test environment. Therefore, the final stage of a project will not be entered without a transition partner identified by the EA.

Teaming

This BAA is intended to encourage the use of complementary, interdisciplinary research and development teams consisting of industry, academia, national test centers, and/or laboratories that exploit individual strengths and unique resources and experience.

However, the TRMC T&E/S&T program will not actively participate in the creation of project teams. If an offeror is proposing a contribution arrangement with a Government / Federal laboratory (personnel, services, facilities, and equipment) as a joint effort to develop the technology, a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) may be required (see Cost Proposal instructions for more on CRADA costs). If an established CRADA exists between the offeror and the intended Government laboratory/entity, a copy of the CRADA shall be provided.

Award Information

Bid and Proposal Funding The cost of preparing proposals in response to this announcement is not an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract or any other contract.

Instrument Type The type of funding instrument selected by the Government will be a contract, military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR), or direct charge by U.S. Army agencies. If a contract is selected as the funding instrument, a cost plus fixed-fee, or a cost type contract in accordance with FAR Part 16, Contract Types will be used. Contract type and funding arrangements are at the discretion of the Government.

Eligibility

To be eligible for award of a contract, a prospective offeror (except other government agencies, including state and local governments) must meet certain minimum standards pertaining to financial resources, ability to comply with the performance schedule, integrity, organization, operational controls, technical skills, facilities, and equipment. In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(1), a cost-reimbursement contract may be used only when the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. At proposal submission time, prospective offerors will be requested to provide evidence of holding an adequate accounting system via a Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA) accounting system survey or a previous DCAA accounting system audit. Potential offerors without Government contracts experience selected for contract award will be subject to an accounting system survey and/or audit to be performed by the cognizant DCAA office before contract award. The auditing authority for universities, academia, or educational institutions is the Office of Naval Research (ONR) cognizant agency.

Certifications Required for Contract Awards Certifications and representations shall be completed by successful offerors prior to award. FAR Online Representations and Certifications are to be completed through the System for Award Management (SAM) website, which replaces Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and found at https://www.SAM.gov. The Excluded Parties List can also be accessed at the SAM website hotlink above. Defense FAR Supplement and contract specific certification packages will be provided to the contractor for completion prior to award.

Eligible Sources All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a white paper under this BAA. Sources identified by the FAR as excluded from doing business with the Government are not considered responsible. Historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions are encouraged to submit white papers and join others in submitting white papers; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for their participation.

Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest Current federal employees are prohibited from participating in particular matters involving conflicting financial, employment, and representational interests (18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, and 208). Once the proposals have been received, and prior to the start of proposal evaluations, the Government will assess potential conflicts of interest and will promptly notify the proposer if any appear to exist. The Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the proposer’s responsibility to give full notice and planned mitigation for all potential organizational conflicts, as discussed below.

Without prior approval or a waiver from the procurement contracting officer (PCO), in accordance with FAR 9.503, a contractor cannot simultaneously provide scientific, engineering, technical assistance (SETA) or similar support and also be a technical performer. As part of the proposal submission, all members of the proposed team (prime proposers, proposed subcontractors, and consultants) must affirm whether they (their organizations and individual team members) are providing SETA or similar support to PEO STRI or TRMC through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must state which office(s) the proposer, subcontractor, consultant, or individual supports and identify the prime contract number(s). All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. The disclosure must include a description of the action the proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. If in the sole https://www.sam.gov/ opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, a proposal fails to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest and/or any identified conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

If a prospective proposer believes a conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the proposer should send his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict to the PCO for this BAA listed in the Points of Contact section.

Foreign Participants Foreign participants and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary non-disclosure agreements, security regulations, and any other applicable statutes.

Some requirements included in Part II may cover export-controlled technologies.

Research in these areas is limited to “U.S. persons” as defined in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR §120.15.

Prohibited Sources Please be advised that while foreign nationals are allowed to work on Government contracts, they must be legal residents with working permits / green cards in the U.S.A.

and shall not be from countries excluded from conducting business with the U.S.

Government. Please see FAR 25.701 and the following website for more information:

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

Employment Eligibility Verification Also, due to changes in homeland security, personnel working under Government contracts must go through the process of background and employment eligibility verification, also referred to as e-Verify. Refer to FAR Clause 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification. This clause is required in ALL contracts. If during the performance of a contract, it becomes necessary to have access to classified information, all persons needing access must have security clearances at the appropriate level. Non-U.S. citizens are not allowed to receive security clearances.

Cost Sharing Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument.

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

Points of Contact

Except for oral and email communications regarding topics, specifications, technical interest and topic relationship to the TTA during the period between BAA release and the white paper submission, all white papers, proposals, written communications, or documentation concerning this BAA shall be forwarded to the contract specialist’s address below.

Questions concerning contractual, cost or pricing, or white paper / proposal format matters should be directed first to the contract specialist, secondly, to the contracting officer.

Administrative, Costing and Contractual Questions

Name Phone Email

Steve I. Honda, Contract Specialist

(407) 208-steve.i.honda.civ@mail.mil, Janice E. Stevenson, Procurement Contracting Officer

(407) 380-janice.e.stevenson.civ@mail.mil

Programmatic and Technical Questions

Trung D. Nguyen, DET Executing Agent

(407) 208-trung.d.nguyen2.civ@mail.mil

Address for Unclassified White Paper/Proposal Submissions

Email: usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.cca-contracts@mail.mil

Common courier:

Steve Honda 12211 Research Parkway Orlando FL 32826

Internet: AMRDEC SAFE https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/Welcome.aspx mailto:steve.i.honda.civ@mail.mil mailto:janice.e.stevenson.civ@mail.mil mailto:trung.d.nguyen2.civ@mail.mil mailto:usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.list.cca-contracts@mail.mil https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/Welcome.aspx

PART II – RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

INTERESTS

DIRECTED ENERGY TEST TECHNOLOGY AREA OVERVIEW

Advancements in Directed Energy (DE) weapon systems are outpacing the technologies needed for Test and Evaluation (T&E). Current DE T&E capabilities are insufficient to support the developmental, operational, and livefire testing requirements of all DE system programs spanning high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave (HPM) domains. Without prior DE weapons progressing through developmental, operational, and live-fire testing, the required legacy and infrastructure for DE T&E has not been created for full spectrum and high fidelity T&E. Realization of many of the infrastructure items required to test DE weapons will require advancement and maturation of various nascent T&E technologies. The fundamental objective of this BAA is to develop high risk, high payoff technologies at TRL 3-5 that can be matured into viable DE T&E capabilities at TRL 6 that are needed by MRTFBs and DoD agencies/laboratories to support DE acquisition programs.

DE weapons, for the purposes of this solicitation, refer to HEL and HPM weapons and do not include non-weapon DE systems (e.g., laser designators, lasers used for chemical and biological remote sensing, and laser perimeter fences). The scope of this effort does not include operational weapon system design, construction, integration, or evaluation, nor does it necessarily include the development of other functional components that may be necessary for complete systems. The goal of the DET S&T TTA is the advancement of technology required for T&E of DE weapon systems, not the development of system technology themselves.

Under the T&E/S&T Program‘s DET S&T TTA, the Government is seeking to identify and overcome current and future DE T&E test infrastructure shortfalls by making timely investments now so that the technologies required to create a robust, future DE T&E infrastructure will be available when needed by DE acquisition programs. This BAA invites innovative white papers/proposals in the areas of HPM and HEL T&E, in addition to a special interest area and other potential technologies.

The following topics are priority needs. White papers/proposals offering innovative directed energy test technology solutions are sought in these areas:

I. High Power Microwave (HPM)

1. Temperature Stable HPM Envelope Detection

HPM Systems emit unique signals. HPM pulses are often short in duration (<100 nsec), their bandwidth may be almost anything (50MHz to 10 GHz), then can emit single shot or at repetition frequencies up to 1000 Hz with pulse to pulse variation. Test locations often need to measure on numerous collection channels, so cost per channel is at a premium, precluding the use of high bandwidth data recorders (oscilloscopes).

Often a diode and low pass filter will be coupled in-line between an HPM Sensor (such as a D-dot) and the data recorder to bypass the direct write of the electromagnetic wave and, instead, capture an envelope of the detected HPM pulse. While diode detection obscures the high frequency detail of the pulse, they can provide the operator with pulse width and peak electric field measurements. Existing diode detection schemes have certain drawbacks, which include:

· Extremely large (up to +3 dB) temperature drift

· Inherently non-linear, semiconductor junction

· Limited rise time (typically > 5-10 nsec)

· Dynamic Range (typically < 20 dB)

· Can be damaged or burned out

· Complex calibration

· RF feed through

· Narrowband only

The DET S&T Test Technology Area (TTA) seeks a new approach, or to substantially improve upon existing diode detection technology addressing the drawbacks described above, while continuing to offer a competitive cost/channel price point (present diode technology can be purchased for $3K/channel). Key performance characteristics will substantially improve temperature drift and calibration concerns that arise in open air, desert environment testing.

2. In-Chamber X-Band HPM Source

Technology to put large narrowband fields on a target within an anechoic chamber is sought to support survivability testing of U.S. assets. The system under test’s response to the source provides the program offices with necessary weapon system survivability information. The DETEC project has addressed portions of this requirement with multiple source systems for outdoor far field tests. Additional S&T source development is required to meet test range requirements for 8.5 to 11 GHz HPM testing in a chamber environment. The HPM sources should be able to generate high powers, be tunable, and have adjustable pulse widths and pulse repetition rates. To cover the full spectrum, multiple source systems may be required. Offerors should describe how their technology would apply across the full frequency range (8.5-11 GHz), and provide anticipated costs for complete coverage. The proposed baseline prototype to be developed under this program should cover all, or a portion of 8.5 – 11 GHz and meet the parameters shown in Table 1, recognizing that the power levels, and other parameters, of the other source systems may vary as a function of frequency. All these systems should be capable of testing inside an anechoic chamber where the range to target is less than ten meters.

DET S&T is developing a single source TRL-6 prototype source covering all, or a portion of 4 – 5.4 GHz. This topic addresses an X-band in chamber source. All sources should attempt to maximize the flexibility of the output to accommodate future threats.

Table 1: Narrowband Threat System Parameters for the 8.5-11 GHz Prototype

Parameter Objective Center Tunability ≥ 10%

Adjustable Pulse Width 10 ns – 20 ns

PRF up to 500 Hz

E-field on target 90 kV/m at 10 m

Target Illuminated @ 3dB ≈ 1.0 m2 Ability to vary field intensity up to 20 dB

Offerors should focus on the development of novel sources capable of meeting these stringent requirements; however, the employed HPM system will include subsystems beyond the source such as prime power, power conditioning, and antenna(s). Offerors must identify the equipment necessary for test validation or bid the development of required customized components (such as the pulse power components to efficiently drive them). Offerors should be able to demonstrate their system’s ability to meet HPM field intensity requirements through the use of modeling and simulation.

3. Low Noise Broadband (VHF to X-Band) Non-Intrusive E-field Sensor

The HPM test community requires non-intrusive E-Field sensors with a broad bandwidth (1 MHz -12 GHZ) to measure HPM fields in locations where conventional sensors provide questionable results. The DET S&T program has developed a family of non-intrusive sensors which meet the specified requirements. These sensors, however, experience significant noise at lower HPM field levels. The noise sources are believed to be caused by fiber cladding noise; access laser (1550 nm) amplitude noise, photo detector noise, electromagnetic interference, where all these noise sources are amplified by the low noise amplifier. Fiber cladding noise has been observed to increase in field applications with differential sun heating and stress during test activities. Substantial reduction of sensor noise background has been achieved by filtering of narrowband signals, but filtering has been ineffective for wideband signals.

The thrust of this S&T initiative is to either reduce the sources of noise in the existing DET S&T E-field sensors or to propose a new approach to minimally intrusive E-field probes (<5% intrusion on the measurement). Minimization efforts should reduce noise by 20 dB (90%) with an objective of 40 dB in E-field measurements. Documentation on existing DET S&T non-intrusive E-field probes noise levels is available on request.

4. Wideband HPM 150-400 MHz Flat Source

A wideband source is required to support MIL-STD-464C testing which does not subject the system under test to excessive field in one portion of the band to achieve the minimum required field in the other portion of the band from 150-400 MHz, a flat source.

The Directed Energy Test and Evaluation Capability CTEIP program provided the test community with a wideband source that more than meets the MIL-STD-464C High Power Microwave frequency and field requirement, however, that source has a field variation of 6 dB over that bandwidth and requires several antenna change and two tests to achieve the desired test activity. Testers require a source that varies by less than 0.5 dB (10%) over the subject bandwidth for a target 3-meters wide at 14-meters range. The required boresight field at 14-meters is 50 V/m/MHz. The proposed solution may be one wideband pulse or a series of successive pulses with different principle frequencies which together satisfy the requirements of this shortfall. The pulse repetition frequency of the solution should be at least 5 pulses, or series of pulses at different principle frequencies, per second for a total of at least 100 pulses (or combined pulses).

5. Remote Report of HPM Target Status

In testing an HPM attack, an approach is required to assess the effectiveness of that attack where human observers cannot be present. Normally, shielded cameras are used to observe visual indication of attack effectiveness (e.g., computer screens), but not all electronic devices have visual indicators to observe (e.g., SCADA), and cameras are prone to fail in HPM environments despite shielding. A hardware/software technology is required to assess the nature of the response to the HPM attack for each electronic target such as: damaged cannot be restarted; requires directed reboot to recover; electronics reboots/restarts after attack; or noise during attack. That information must then be conveyed to a test control center at a remote location.

6. W-band Antenna Beam Characterization Supporting Solid State ADS

The solid state version of ADS (SS ADS) achieves the required control of power on target by dithering the beam on and off target at a rate <1000 Hz. The target for ADS is <1 m2 and the dithered beam coverage is <3 m2. Testing the safety of the SS ADS requires characterization of the placement of the dithered beam power with respect to the target. The power measurement requirement is 0.01-4.5 W/cm2. The resolution of the characterization is both vertical and horizontal polarization at 5 cm separation. An earlier DET S&T project, Scanning Target Board, developed a similar target board using diodes; however the interrogation of those diodes will not support the required data rate.

Further, it is uncertain that the diodes relax fast enough to support measurements at the required rate even if the interrogation were fast enough. Finally, calibration of the many diodes has proved challenging. Calibration needs to be an important consideration of any solution to this topic.

7. Miniaturized HPRF Attack Instrumentation for Small UAV

A recent threat is small electrically driven Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) containing commercial camera or other surveillance capability. These vehicles have low radar cross sections and are visually difficult to locate. To develop and test counter UAV HPM systems, the target needs to be instrumented to determine the HPM waveform on target and, since these are very small targets, the HPM instrumentation should not participate in HPM interaction with the UAV (minimally intrusive, <5%). The UAVs to be instrumented are typically around 3 to 6 pounds with a carrying capacity of an additional

0.5 to 1.0-pounds, which is the maximum weight of the instrumentation package, including either an E or H-field probe. The HPM frequencies for this topic are 300 MHz to 3 GHz. A thermally stable envelope detector showing pulse rise time, peak field, and pulse length is sufficient. The fields to be measured are 0.1 to 200 kV/m, with pulse lengths of 2 to 500 ns, rise times >1 ns, and pulse repetition frequencies of 1 to 2000 Hz. Up to 5 minutes of HPM attack data should be stored and data recovery from downed UAV can be assumed. An ideal solution is to transmit HPM attack data to a ground station after a predetermined time to allow a second engagement if necessary, but this capability is less important than a light weight approach.

8. Deep Soil Electrical Properties for HPM Attack

Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and explosive mines are often buried in natural media and similar man-made materials associated with roads. HPM systems are often used as Counter-IED and Counter-mine tools or detection devices. To test these HPM systems it is often necessary to calculate the reflection of the RF waves from the surface and attenuation of RF between the surface and the depth of the target. The same information is required to apply models to the analysis of effectiveness of HPM devices. A previous DET S&T project, HPM Soil Electrical Properties (HSEP), used the surface soil as part of a microstrip ring resonator to determine the electrical properties of the first few centimeters of the soil. This approach satisfied the requirement to know the reflection of HPM beam from the surface to above surface HPM targets, but did not address losses in the soil for attacking subsurface targets. A rapid method to assess the soil electrical properties to the depth of military representative targets is required.

The depth of the desired targets is 1-meter with a resolution of 10-cm in consolidated soils and 2.0-cm for any sharp boundaries that might exist such as the base of the macadam, soil moisture layers, and clay lenses. Soil electrical properties desired are the real and imaginary portion of the dielectric constant to 10% of truth and conductivity in mS/m. The deep soil electrical properties are desired from 100 MHz to 2 GHz. Soil relative permeability (µ) is assumed to be 1.0 for this technology, but the project should address how to tell if µ1.

9. Flexible High Power Microwave Ku-Band 14-18 GHz Source

Technology is sought to meet the dual requirements of a High Power Microwave and Radar test requirements stated in MIL-STD-464C. The system under test’s response to the source provides the program offices with necessary weapon system survivability information. The dual use narrow band source technology should be capable of operating at low pulse repetition frequency (PRF) and high peak power, and high PRF and lower power in the same frequency band. The proposed technology demonstration prototype should be capable of operation at 14 GHz and tune to higher frequencies for an offeror’s proposed spectral bandwidth of 500 MHz or greater. The source needs to input to a WR-62 horn wave guide flanges. The test target will be 3-m from a standard gain horn. The technology demonstration prototype should fit in a standard 8’x8’x20’ trailer and require no more than 208 V, 100 A, 3-phase input power. Table 2 presents the overall requirement for the requested technology.

Table 2. Ku-Band Source Parameters

Parameter HPM Radar

Tunability ≥ 3.5% NA

Adjustable Pulse Width 50-200 ns 4000 ns

PRF 1 to 500 Hz 9300 Hz

E-field on target ≥ 10 kV/m 3.5 kV/m

Target Illuminated @ 3dB 0.3 m2 0.3 m2

Field Variation

(attenuation)

0-15 dB 0-15 dB

Technology Frequency

Range

14-18 GHz 14 GHz

Duty Cycle ≥ 0.5% ≥ 3.5%

10. Small UAV HPRF Attack Standardized Test Vehicle

A recent threat is small electrically driven Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) containing commercial camera or other surveillance capability. These vehicles have low radar cross sections and are hard to target visually. To develop and test counter UAV HPM systems for all Services, a standardized small UAV target is required to assess the effectiveness of various HPM counter UAV technologies. The standardized HPM attack UAV target with control and HPM measurement capability should weigh <8 pounds and be survivable and controllable in an HPM environment. An effort of the TRMC Directed Energy Test and Evaluation Capability, Test Target Subsystem Surety describes what is required for airborne vehicle control in an HPM environment. The report will be available to anyone wishing to address this topic. These techniques may need modification to meet weight requirements of this topic. The standardized target should have a radar cross section of 0.5 cm2, be available in a highly visible form for target recovery, and a low visibility version for techniques, tactics, and procedures testing.

The standardized target should use GPS location technology and provide time and location registration on the HPM waveform data collected. An envelope detector showing pulse rise time, peak field, and pulse length is sufficient. The prototype for this S&T topic should operate in an HPM environment 300 MHz and 3 GHz, but the technology should be applicable from 100 kHz to 35 GHz. The fields to measured are

0.1 to 200 kV/m, with pulse lengths of 2 to 500 ns, rise times >1ns, and pulse repetition frequencies of 1 to 2000Hz. Five minutes or more of HPM attack data over an engagement of up to 30-minutes should be stored and data recovery from downed UAV can be assumed. The target should be capable of up to 1-hour of flight.

11. HPRF Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Explosives Instrumentation

Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Explosives (HERO) testing is accomplished according to MIL-HDBK-240A primarily using techniques that average the radio frequency (RF) heating of the electrical initiated device (EID) bridge wire on exposure to RF energy. Currently the most used method of assessing RF systems impact on EIDs is to use an optical fiber based temperature system to measure the heating on the bridge wire, which is an averaging process assuming a relatively slow buildup of thermal effects from things like radar with high average power. Most HPM systems have very low average power from very high peak power but short and less frequent pulses. The HPM community is uncertain that the current HERO assessment method which averages out the flash pulse of high heating in a bridge wire over a long period of time is relevant for HPM HERO assessment. What is required is a nonintrusive bridge wire current measurement capability that can respond to HPM pulse lengths of less than 100 ns and peak pulse power of to 1 GW. The measurement technology should not respond to the HPM radiation directly but only through the current generated in the bridge wire. The technology prototype should be demonstrated using an U.S. M-6 EID, a rather large, hot bridge wire, and common fuze. This fuze is thought to have a minimum response to heating the bridge wire in millisecond, but this has not been verified with very high quick current and heating surges typical of HPM operations. The currents measured should range from 0.015 to 0.1 mA representing maximum no fire currents. The technology could also serve the overall HERO community if it also responds to known quick response EIDs such as carbon bridges and conductive composition devices for which there is no current methods of indirect HERO assessments.

II. High Energy Laser (HEL)

1. Passive Reflective HEL Target Board/Camera System

For many open-air HEL tests against flight and maritime targets (UAVs, small boats) on test ranges, characterization of the HEL spot position and irradiance profile at target range is necessary to confirm that the HEL beam spot can be placed on the desired…