Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/126542587/Darpa
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 00:05:46
Document Index: 538653267

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2371', 'art 2', 'art 15', 'arts 1', 'arts 730', 'arts 120', 'art 120', 'arts 730', 'arts 120', 'art1']

Darpa | Satellite | Conflict Of Interest
Uploaded by Jeffy Wolfy
Description: Darpa
Broad Agency Announcement SeeMe Tactical Technology Office (TTO) DARPA-BAA-12-35
Table of Contents Part I: Overview Information .............................................................................................. 2 Part II: Full Text of Announcement .................................................................................... 2 I. Funding Opportunity Description ......................................................................... 5 A. Program Introduction............................................................................... 5 B. Goals ........................................................................................................ 7 C. Notional Demonstration Scenario Architecture....................................... 8 D. Program Scope......................................................................................... 9 E. Technical Area 1: COTS-based production-capable EO satellite system 11 F. Technical Area 2: Non-traditional apertures and techniques ................. 15 G. Fostering Next Generation Engineers ................................................... 17 II. Award Information ............................................................................................ 17 III. Eligibility Information ...................................................................................... 18 A. Eligible Applicants ................................................................................ 18 B. Procurement Integrity, Standards of Conduct, Ethical Considerations, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest ................................................ 18 C. Cost Sharing/Matching .......................................................................... 19 D. Collaborative Efforts ............................................................................. 19 IV. Application and Submission Information ........................................................ 20 A. Address to Request Application Package .............................................. 20 B. Content and Form of Application Submission ...................................... 20 C. Submission Dates and Times ................................................................. 30 D. Intergovernmental Review (if applicable) ............................................. 30 E. Funding Restrictions .............................................................................. 30 V. Application Review Information ....................................................................... 30 A. Evaluation Criteria................................................................................. 30 B. Review and Selection Process ............................................................... 32 VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION .......................................... 33 A. Selection Notices ................................................................................... 33 B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements ............................... 33 C. Reporting ............................................................................................... 39 D. Electronic Systems ................................................................................ 40 VII. AGENCY CONTACTS.................................................................................. 40 VIII. OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................. 41 A. Intellectual Property Procurement Contract Proposers ......................... 41 B. Non-Procurement Contract Proposers – Noncommercial and Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) ............... 42 C. All Proposers – Patents .......................................................................... 42 D. All Proposers – Intellectual Property Representations .......................... 43 2
Table of Figures Figure 1: Notional Program Timeline (in Government FY) ............................................ 10 Figure 2: Technical Areas in DARPA-BAA-12-35 ......................................................... 10 Figure 3: Deliverables for Technical Area One (COTS based production capable satellite bus) ................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Deliverables for Technical Area Two (Non-traditional apertures and techniques)........................................................................................................ 16
Part I: Overview Information       Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO) Funding Opportunity Title – Space Enabled Effects for Military Engagements (SeeMe) Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – Broad Agency Announcement DARPA-BAA-1235 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not Applicable Dates o Posting Date: 9 May 2012 o Questions Due Date: 23 May 21012 o Proposal Due Date: 29 June 2012
Description of the funding opportunity: The goal of the SeeMe program is to provide useful on-demand imagery information directly to the lowest echelon warfighter in the field from a very low cost satellite constellation launched on a schedule that conforms to DoD operational tempos. The need for on-demand information imagery is driven by availability gaps in situational awareness information prior to, during, and after military engagements, due to inconsistent and infrequent location-specific imagery. There is significant military utility in closing this information gap with persistent coverage and on-demand delivery, driving up mission success probability and driving down personnel risk. SeeMe will provide reliable and persistent information by using small, short-lived, very low cost satellites at very low altitudes, networked to existing fielded communications systems and handheld platforms. The DARPA challenge is to provide full constellation coverage over a selected latitude band at a system price point that is consistent with a fraction of airborne costs (including launch), translated to a satellite unit cost point of no more than $500,000 each, exclusive of launch and ground operations.     Total amount of money to be awarded – Approximately $45M. Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated. Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract, other transaction. Agency contacts – Mr. David Barnhart, Program Manager, DARPA/TTO ATTN: DARPA-BAA-12-35 675 North Randolph St. Arlington, VA 22203 FAX: 703-516-8725 EMAIL: DARPA-BAA-12-35@darpa.mil
Part II: Full Text of Announcement I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION DARPA often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. The BAA will appear first on the FedBizOpps website, http://www.fbo.gov, then the agency website, http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Solicitations/DARPA_Solicitations.aspx. A website with SeeMe Industry Day presentations is located at http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Space_Enabled_Effects_for_Military_E ngagements_(SeeMe).aspx. The following information is provided to those wishing to respond to this BAA. A. Program Introduction Today, the lowest echelon members of the US military are unable to obtain on-demand satellite imagery in a timely manner due to unavailability of satellite overflight opportunities, lack of information distribution channels, prioritization conflicts, and/or classification restrictions. At the same time, insurgents that operate against US warfighters worldwide have the ability to utilize commercial imagery services to obtain information, effectively providing them with an asymmetric advantage. The Space Enabled Effects for Military Engagements (SeeMe) program aims to enable mobile individual US warfighters access to on-demand relevant tactical information, providing the ability for small squads and fire-teams to maintain higher levels of pre-engagement information reliability in remote and beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) conditions. There is significant military utility in closing this imagery information gap with persistent coverage and on-demand delivery, with the goal of driving up mission success probability and driving down personnel risk. The goal of the SeeMe program is to provide useful on-demand imaging information directly to the lowest echelon warfighter in the field from a very low cost satellite constellation launched on a schedule that conforms to DoD operational tempos. SeeMe will provide reliable, persistent, and timely information by using small, short-lived, very low cost satellites at low altitudes, networked into existing fielded communications systems and upcoming “smart” handheld platforms. Altitude is one important design variable for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, determining the scope and quality of coverage for a particular arena. The selection of altitude is driven by a tradeoff between performance and persistence requirements, both of which are critical in military pre-engagement timelines and real-time monitoring. Unfortunately, while satellite systems can provide broad area coverage and the ability to operate uncontested, they have historically been far more expensive than their airborne counterparts, which have comparable or higher resolution but limited area coverage. The goal of the SeeMe program is to approach space-based imaging from a new viewpoint: instead of long-lived, high-performance satellites which are tasked remotely and their products analyzed through a centralized organization, SeeMe will consider short-lived low-cost satellites which can provide ondemand actionable image information directly to the lowest echelon warfighter in the 5
field. Implemented as a constellation, these spacecraft would provide a far larger global coverage area at lower cost than a set of UAVs flying simultaneously over multiple theaters per day. To realize these benefits, DARPA is interested in pursuing a change from performance-centric to production-based cost-centric satellite development. Currently, satellite manufacturing typically follows a non-timely delivery cycle relative to military needs; where build-up and deployment of troops to theater is anywhere from 3-6 months, it takes 12-24 months just to build a satellite. Satellite manufacturing is also fixed-cost dominated (i.e. infrastructure, materials and labor driven) and typically follows a custom-built methodology with very low repeat flight and production rates. Because satellite constellations typically have very high up-front costs, cost-benefit analyses typically favor other ISR platforms over satellites in acquisition planning for yearly Combatant Command cycles. The SeeMe program will address potential ways to revolutionize the existing satellite build/launch model, to achieve space-based system costs that are a fraction of an airborne system’s cost. This will be done in several ways:
1. Decrease small satellite lifetime requirements and reduce cost by utilizing non-
aerospace components with commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) reliability and commercial tempo refresh/obsolescence, to drive the economics toward “disposability.” 2. Utilize non-traditional apertures (radio frequency or optical) and imagery processing techniques to lower cost and pre-deployment stowage requirements while increasing performance. SeeMe will seek to increase effective tactical resolution through balancing and trading advanced apertures and image techniques with lower altitude flight. 3. Enable at least an order of magnitude increase in satellite flight rate by using innovative manufacturing approaches and a rapid launch system. SeeMe will demonstrate conformance with actual DoD operational tempos, with an entire constellation built via a production methodology and delivered on a representative pre-engagement schedule. The SeeMe program recognizes that to date, system cost, coupled with the lack of low cost/high-rate launches, has been a limiting factor in fielding a tactically relevant small satellite constellation. To that end the SeeMe program is coordinating with DARPA’s Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA) program1. ALASA is aiming to drive down launch costs through application of revolutionary technologies and operations approaches, resulting in an affordable launch capability for small satellites to low altitude orbits. ALASA and SeeMe performers will participate in several joint principal investigator (PI) meetings during Phases I and II of the SeeMe program. The program will culminate with an on-orbit demonstration in 2014-2015 of a representative constellation of 24 SeeMe satellites. The on-orbit demonstration will take
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/oda/darpa/cmo/darpa-baa-12-07/listing.html
place in low-earth orbit (LEO) between 200-350km, with a planned latitudinal coverage swath width of ±10 degrees around zero degrees during Phase 1. (Note: DARPA may change the latitude for the demonstration depending upon solution sets presented in Phase 1). B. Goals The DARPA SeeMe demonstration has a number of challenging goals. The primary goals are listed below:  Deliver a constellation equivalent number of satellites within 90 days from receipt of order at a specific price point per satellite (based on recurring production costs). The goal is to achieve a complete constellation, including launch, at a fraction of the cost of an existing UAV. For this demonstration, the cost goal is assumed to be $12M for the satellites that make up the constellation, exclusive of launch and operations. (At zero degrees inclination between -10 and +10 to support < 90 minutes revisit this translates to, in at least one orbital solution set, 24 satellites.) Provide persistent coverage of any point on the Earth’s surface within a latitude and longitude area, with no coverage gaps greater than 90 minutes. For the SeeMe demonstration, DARPA is interested in solution sets starting with a band at zero degree inclination between -10 and +10, to solutions that are able to encompass a latitude/longitude area at higher latitude than zero degrees. (Hybrid solution sets of circular and elliptical combinations of orbits can be considered to account for higher latitude’s.) Achieve the specified coverage persistence for a minimum of 45 consecutive days. Demonstrate performance of a visible imaging solution capable of collecting a nominal value of NIIRS 5+2 imagery at a range of 300km at nadir. Demonstrate the ability for up to 10 independent users within a single satellite’s instantaneous field of regard to directly task the satellite and receive a single image in ≤ 90 minutes delay from time of request to receipt of data by the requestor. Deliver some or all of the satellites to international airfields and/or military bases worldwide using existing commercial and/or military transport infrastructure. Demonstrate the ability for the satellites to be integrated rapidly to a launch system (e.g., the ALASA launch vehicle) within 12-96 hours of arrival at the airfield.
NIIRS 5 is defined by a range of 0.75 to 1.2m ground resolution distance (GRD). Translation of GRD to GSD from an altitude requires a NIIRS equation solution depending upon additional variables including but not limited to instantaneous field of view at range, signal-to-noise ratio, modulation transfer function, etc. (http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/niirs.htm)
C. Notional Demonstration Scenario Architecture A notional demonstration scenario and objectives are outlined below for reference in preparation of BAA responses. 1. The SeeMe performer(s) are called up to deliver 24 satellites within 90 days. OBJECTIVE: Validate the ability to deliver a complete production build set of satellites in less than three months from date of request with a noncontinuous production methodology. Prove that production can be met without pre-ordering or storing long lead components or parts. 2. Deliver the 24 satellites to at least three international airport locations using commercial delivery methods. OBJECTIVE: Verify the satellites have the ability to be treated as “wooden rounds”3 and stored and transported on board any military or commercial shipping container. 3. Load the launch vehicle and the satellites’ onboard systems with the desired orbit launch release point and ephemeris targets received from a forward operating base (FOB) initial latitude/longitude or inclination band coverage request. OBJECTIVE: Validate the FOB input for the satellites’ automatic orbital sequencing and deployment strategy off of the launch system, with only “launch and shoot” requirements for the launch vehicle integration crew. FOB operator requests should be in the form of desired terrestrial location with typical mensurated coordinates of latitudinal band coverage sent to the integrators at the airfields. 4. Integrate the 24 satellites on up to 24 separate launch systems. OBJECTIVE: Verify the satellites are launch vehicle plug-and-play compatible, with automatic checkout once connected, and able to be integrated by “airman/seaman/soldier’s” worldwide with minimal knowledge or training. 5. Satellite constellation is automatically deployed and each satellite begins taking operational requests for image delivery within 12-96 hours of its insertion into orbit. OBJECTIVE: Verify ability of constellation (via independent SeeMe satellites in various planes) to be inserted and phased to provide the coverage requirements; verify on board autonomy and ability to calibrate payload and validate Earth pointing within 12-96 hours of initial insertion.
The term “wooden round” is often used in reference to munitions logistics. Characteristics include: long shelf life, self-contained system, insensitive to environments, minimal field assembly, minimal inspection before use, produced at low cost.
6. Maintain constellation spacing and orbits to provide persistent coverage and communications, which support repeated requests by individual users on the ground from handheld devices. OBJECTIVE: Verify that the constellation can provide repeatable persistence with gaps of no more than 90 minutes, and that up to 10 users within a specified field of regard can request and receive images of each request (or data availability) with a nominal NIIRS value of 5+ at nadir. Validate ability for the request to be sent directly to the satellite from a tablet-sized handheld without external antenna using commercial encryption methods, and for the resulting image to be delivered to the same handheld within 90 minutes either directly or via existing communications systems. The proposed solution will have limited satellite command and control capability on the ground, and satellites must have sufficient autonomy to receive the field requests and respond to them with no additional ground communication required. It is envisioned that only a single deployed ground station (antenna, transceiver, and laptop) will be required for each constellation, able to display state of health and ephemeris information to validate that each satellite is functional and in the proper position. It is also envisioned that the ground station will periodically verify individual satellite health and status as well as orbital ring spacing and position. The ground station should be capable of being operated by a single individual. During subsequent Phases DARPA will explore with ground users utility in providing the satellite constellation status as a real-time or updated “app” to both a combat air operations center/FOB and/or directly to the individual users’ handheld devices. D. Program Scope SeeMe consists of two principal technical areas, initially executed independently (in Phase 1) and later integrated together (in Phase 2) as a functional satellite constellation to be launched by a rapid launch system (in Phase 3). The two technical areas solicited through this broad agency announcement (BAA) are: 1. a non-continuous production-capable satellite system, 2. non-traditional apertures and algorithms or techniques Phase 1 is notionally 14 months to achieve preliminary design level maturity and hardware-based demonstration(s). Phase 2 is notionally 15 months for all hardware components to achieve a minimum of critical design level maturity and to demonstrate a first production run of at least 6 satellites through build and normal environmental tests. Phase 3 is notionally 12 months to achieve launch and operations of the full constellation of 24 satellites. Proposals are solicited in Tech Area 1 and 2 for Phase 1 for this BAA. Figure 1 shows the notional timeline for the overall program and individual technical areas, and Figure 2 shows the technical area proposal approach for Phase 1 of the SeeMe program.
Figure 1: Notional Program Timeline (in Government FY)
Proposals are solicited for the following technical areas with the following proposal approaches (Figure 2):
Figure 2: Technical Areas in DARPA-BAA-12-35
# of Awards Anticipated
Program Technical Area
Noncontinuous productioncapable satellite system
Multiple (~4)
Proposers are to prepare a proposal for a 14-month Phase 1. Prior to the end of Phase 1 (~90 days), the Government will provide updated proposal guidance for Phase 2 proposals to all Phase 1 performers. Phase 2 proposals will be evaluated based on the same criteria as Phase 1 proposals. Proposals will be due 60 days prior to the end of Phase 1. It is expected that performers will be selected to continue to Phase 2. Phase 3 is expected to be a separate solicitation.
Nontraditional productioncapable apertures and techniques
Proposers are to prepare a proposal for a 14-month Phase 1 effort. It is expected that prior to completion of Phase 1, proposers will integrate, as appropriate, with Technical Area 1 proposers for a submission into Phase 2 as a complete system. No separate Phase 2/3 proposals for this tech area are envisioned.
Deliverables specific to each technical area are described in the sections below. The milestone reviews in Phase 1 (identified as A, B, and C in Figure 1) will be conducted in the form of principal investigator (PI) meetings at which all performers in both technical areas will be present. Proposers are referred to Section VI.B.1 for additional information on project meetings. At each of the milestone reviews the performer is expected to provide a technical data package on their element(s) containing applicable software source code, libraries, executables, test cases, and software documentation, along with drawings, models, blueprints, circuit diagrams, data sets, specifications, and documentation developed in the course of performance for their technical areas that are required for interoperability of the hardware and software. Proposers are also referred to Section VI.C of this BAA for additional reporting requirements. This BAA is intentionally structured in the form of dual independent technical areas in Phase 1 to facilitate participation by small and non-traditional performers, as well as academic and other not-for-profit institutions. Proposers may respond to one or both of these technical areas, depending on their scope of competency. The two technical areas have high degrees of interaction with each other, and many interface and integration requirements. However DARPA requests that single organizations wishing to bid on both technical areas submit separate proposals for each. DARPA reserves the right to select all, some, or portions of proposed solutions in a particular proposal for integration into the SeeMe program. E. Technical Area 1: COTS-based production-capable EO satellite system A multitude of factors (low production rates, high reliability and lifetime requirements, etc.) drive current satellite costs to be primarily dominated by factors other than the spacecraft hardware itself. This includes fixed costs such as dedicated facilities for build, integration and test; associated labor; and “standing army” costs due to delays and irregular production rates. Also, the longer a satellite’s required life on orbit, the more costs are incurred, e.g., higher levels of cleanliness require higher infrastructure costs; higher levels of validation testing require more time in environmental test chambers; and higher levels of reliability require higher levels of oversight, system engineering, detailed analysis, etc. This technical area intends to explore the ultimate boundaries of low cost satellite production through three high level objectives:
Objective Capabilities at a High Level: Enable non-continuous4 production levels at the same price point to the Government. Regardless of how many operational satellites may be required
“Non-continuous” in this context is meant to recognize that military operations and needs tempo is variable across any given year. That is, there may be a need for a constellation in the first 90 days of a year,
every year, a production methodology should be developed from SeeMe that allows for a consistent cost point threshold that is developed and maintained to keep the resultant price to the Government the same. (Note, the initial cost point for demonstration purposes on SeeMe is $500k/unit, based on initial 24 satellites). The methodology to achieve this may include use of existing non-space production lines, tooling, and machinery, as well as tapping into existing high volume production lines in non-aerospace industries, including rapid, low-cost manufacturing technologies (mobile phone industry original equipment manufacturers), propulsion technology (automobile racing industry nitrous oxide high-pressure cold gas technology), solid state components (industrial machinery electronics components), and valve technology (medical pneumatic valve industry) as examples. Enable platform reliability that is not dictated externally, but comes from inherent reliability within the COTS parts that it utilizes. Many non-aerospace industries now conform to high reliability standards that meet or exceed the low end of aerospace requirements. SeeMe satellites should leverage inherent reliability from a vetted selection of commercial sectors that could provide functions and subsystems to meet LEO satellite needs. This may put more focus on new approaches to quality assurance processes and systems engineering oversight. Enable rapid and frequent technology insertion into satellite subsystems at natural refresh points, based on use of commercial parts. The intent is to enable direct insertion and use of commercially-driven Moore’s Law upgrades to electronics, without costly and time-consuming “re-qualification” specifically for space. The goal is to take advantage of preplanned obsolescence and product improvements, promulgated in the commercial world in multiple technology areas, allowing space systems to improve at the same speed as consumer electronics hardware and software. Challenges/Considerations:
DARPA believes that the development of a cost-driven satellite system with unknown production rates will require innovative new approaches. Proposers are encouraged to describe their concepts for use of non-aerospace components, techniques, and processes to create non-continuous production and delivery methodologies to enable the SeeMe goals. Proposers are encouraged to develop and show a trade space analysis based on the SeeMe performance variables (e.g., altitude, GRD, life, FOV/FOR, etc.) that their system can address. The notional demonstration objective of 24 units is meant to spur a production methodology that, once operational, conforms to both non-continuous DoD acquisition needs, and a range of potential global DoD uses; more or less actual operational units
and the next may not be needed until the last 90 days of the year, with a gap in production between them. The architecture proposed must take this into account and provide for a methodology to avoid undue price increases due to this gap.
may be enabled as a long as the systems implementation proposed still provides the comparable value across the key SeeMe objectives, regardless of the specific location or longitudinal/latitudinal band desired. Minimizing the time from request to delivery, and maximizing the effective image quality (measured in NIIRS) while maintaining economic efficiency, are the drivers for tactical effectiveness in SeeMe. In their system solution trade space, proposers are encouraged to consider not just technical hardware/software innovations, but hybrid orbitology methods to help maximize the space based information delivery effectiveness (i.e. mixes of altitudes, inclinations, elliptical vs. circular etc.). Proposers are freely encouraged to explore boundaries in system technical architectures to achieve the greatest value in a SeeMe system offering. This may include extremes from development of a single satellite to meet the on-demand requirement for request and delivery of an image by itself, to the utilization of alternative satellite to satellite communication paths, to disaggregating the communications and optical functions to multiple satellites that fly in proximity. The goal is to maximize value through exploration of the trade space of SeeMe variables with the primary objective to minimize cost of the resultant constellation, through novel production methodologies of the satellite system, independent of the launch vehicle platform used to deliver them. Performers are encouraged to consider how their system offering performs both on the baseline ALASA launch system, as well as traditional fixed site launch vehicles.
In keeping with the flexible and re-locatable nature of the ALASA launch concept, proposers will be requested to provide an evaluation of the existing international commercial military transportation architecture that could support the SeeMe constellation deployment, during the first Phase. This would include, but not be limited to, evaluating existing shipping containers and logistics methods used by both commercial companies and typical high volume military transport organizations, evaluation of routes to various airports that would support aircraft-like launch vehicle operations and the various secure depot stops along the way, methods to safeguard the SeeMe satellites both in transit and at a temporary depot location, and other information that proposers believe relevant to shipment of SeeMe satellites, etc. Considerations in a non-continuous production satellite system may include but are not limited to:      Ability to create production architecture that allows for non-continuous production rates without changing price to customer. Ability to integrate with a variety of potential non-traditional aperture designs and traditional or non-traditional aperture algorithm techniques. Ability to minimize or eliminate stockpiling components or parts to support a rapid authorization to proceed (ATP) to delivery timescale. Ability to balance satellite lifetime vs. cost vs. performance at low orbit altitudes. Ability to balance energy requirements between the satellite’s attitude control system and the launch vehicle.
Onboard autonomy that allows simple orbital ephemeris loads during pre-launch integration to the launch vehicle, and on orbit deployment and checkout without commanding from the ground. Ability to meet logistics requirements related to shipping SeeMe satellites at an accelerated timescale to worldwide locations using existing international commercial providers.
The proposers will provide an acquisition profile that meets the deliverables described in Figure 3:
Figure 3: Deliverables for Technical Area One (non-continuous production capable satellite system) Milestone Deliverables Phase 1  Milestone deliverable packages identified under Program Scope (Figure 1)  PDR-level design package for satellite proposed with identification of specific components or parts. PDR-level design of a flexible satellite to LV adapter (LV to adapt to will be defined at K/O).  A business plan that shows the proposed production architecture with substantiated cost details for non-continuous production.  System trade study that shows balance between life, altitude, performance and cost (total and unit) of satellite architecture to achieve SeeMe goals.  System hardware in the loop based demonstration of image capture.  Define/identify standard commercial transport logistics methods, interfaces to existing cargo and shipping containers, storage locations at various depot points worldwide to meet SeeMe deployment requirements to be provided at the program kickoff. Phase 2 and 3 deliverables are notional. Technical Area 1 performers will receive updated proposal guidance for Phase 2 proposals at the conclusion of Phase 1, with updated Phase 2 deliverables. Phase 2  CDR-level design package for proposed satellite system.  Demonstration and delivery of a first production run of at least 6 satellites.  Environmental acceptance tests on at least 2 satellites, with translational metrics that allow subsequent satellites built on production to be qualified, minimizing the number that ultimately must go through environmental test.  Initial integration of at least one satellite with the ALASA interface and logistics trail.  Support for 2 field demonstrations for the integrated image collection and RF tasking/receiving of ground based COTS handsets with Governmentprovided ground based hardware and software. Phase 3  Demonstration and delivery of a production run of 24 (or other identified expected to be number) satellites. separate  Shipment of 24 (or other identified number) satellites to 3 specified solicitation (international) launch points.  Support for a minimum of 45 and up to 90 days of on-orbit operations with a single deployable ground station system that displays health, status and ephemeris of each satellite in the constellation, and provides notional constellation status via a simple “app” to various users.
F. Technical Area 2: Non-traditional apertures and techniques DARPA is seeking proposals to support various types of non-traditional deployable RF and imaging apertures (both optical trains and sensors/focal planes), and traditional or non-traditional image processing techniques to support the low cost, short lifetime requirements for SeeMe satellites. This technical area seeks to maximize imaging sensor performance at minimal cost and mass for an electro-optical (EO) system, and to achieve the goal of direct communications with in-theater assets for tasking and delivery. 1.   Objective Capabilities at a High Level: Provide an imaging aperture in the visible spectrum that can support collection of a NIIRS 5.5 image over an area (i.e. 5 km x 5 km area) from a minimum orbital altitude of 300 km at nadir. Provide an RF aperture with the ability to receive a low bandwidth task request directly from a handheld device (for the SeeMe demonstration, the device is assumed to be an Android tablet-sized handset of commercial quality) that provides at a minimum target latitude and longitude, time and a nominal ID stamp, along with the ability to transmit the resultant image, with appropriate metadata, back to the in-theater terrestrial originating device, and/or to an intheater terrestrial antenna for delivery to the originating device at the originating location. Provide traditional and/or non-traditional image processing techniques that enhance the overall capability of traditional aperture optical system, or augment the information delivery effectiveness of the resultant SeeMe imaging system. Challenges/Considerations:
The proposer should consider challenges that come with maximizing the massconstrained performance of an EO system on each SeeMe satellite, as well as the complexity associated with large apertures for uplink reception of very low power signals and downlink of a large image file. Approaches to production volume and parts availability should be explained succinctly, along with a cogent integration approach to the spacecraft bus. The proposer will explain their vision for non-traditional apertures and specifically consider the following items:      Size, weight, power and volume considerations to fit into a satellite system capable of integrating to a rapid launch system (e.g., ALASA). Ability to create a production line that supports non-continuous schedule of production over a single year, keeping unit price at the same level. Ability to provide uplink and downlink throughput over a broad coverage area at nadir consistent with SeeMe goals. Ability to provide imaging performance at nadir that corresponds to NIIRS 5+ over a range of altitudes. Incorporation of innovative techniques, such as predictive imaging, to minimize the required bandwidth or other algorithmic techniques that improve SeeMe system performance for timely data delivery performance to the warfighter. 15
The proposer should explain the cost/benefit trades associated with non-traditional apertures and/or techniques as they relate to the SeeMe cost and non-continuous production goals. Another challenge is the complexity associated with RF communications between the satellite and handheld user device. Proposer will explain their RF communication solution and specifically consider and describe the following items: 
How they complete link budgets for all free space links. If the proposed solution requires new hardware, an outline of the frequency authorization process, schedule, budget, and clear definition of what support will be required from DARPA in the frequency allocation process. If the proposed solution includes the use of existing infrastructure, whether commercial or DoD, identification of what level of engineering cooperation from the Government is required to ensure frequency allocation for this system.
The proposers will provide an acquisition profile that meets the deliverables described in Figure 4:
Figure 4: Deliverables for Technical Area Two (Non-traditional apertures and techniques) Milestone Deliverables Phase 1  Milestone deliverable packages identified under Program Scope (Figure 1)	 PDR-level design of an EO based aperture payload that integrates to a bus system.  PDR-level design of an RF based aperture that allows low power signal reception and image transmission to a COTS handheld device.  Initial code demonstration and PDR-level design of image processing techniques that increase SeeMe system effectiveness. Phase 2 and 3 deliverables listed below are notional based on best guesses of what is needed to support a flight effort. There is no anticipation to solicit separate Phase 2 or 3 proposals for Tech area 2. It is expected that independent performers on this Tech area effort will integrate into a system performer under Tech Area 1 for a full proposal prior to Phase 2. Phase 2  CDR-level design package for the proposed EO and/or RF system.  Support for 2 field demonstrations for the integrated image collection and RF tasking/receiving of ground based COTS handsets with Governmentprovided hardware and software.  Demonstration of a pre-production run delivery of at least (6) flight-capable SeeMe imaging and/or RF apertures.  Delivery of flight ready technique specific code into the SeeMe system architecture (ground or flight). Phase 3  Production run and delivery of 24 (or other identified number) SeeMe aperture systems (RF and/or EO), with appropriate lead time required to support Technical Area 1 performers (TBD during Phase I).  Support to a system provider for up to 90 days of on-orbit operations to validate image system effectiveness with appropriate metrics to measure its system value.
G. Fostering Next Generation Engineers DARPA wishes to encourage academic institutional participation in the bid process for the BAA technical areas, and also to encourage participating commercial entities to utilize students as much as practical in their development and delivery process, from requirements definition and design through launch and on-orbit operations. II. AWARD INFORMATION Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of funding awarded under this BAA will depend on the quality of proposals received and the availability of funds. 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 at the end of one or more of the phases. Awards under this BAA will be made to proposers on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed below (see Section V, Application Review Information), and program balance to provide overall value to the Government. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract or other transaction depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, and other factors. The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications. The Government reserves the right to remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price within a reasonable time or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. As of the date of publication of this BAA, DARPA expects that program goals for this BAA cannot be met by proposers intending to perform “fundamental research,” i.e., basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community; as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons. Therefore, DARPA anticipates restrictions on the resultant research. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, DARPA recognizes that proposed research solutions could be of either a fundamental or restricted nature. Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the nature of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or restricted, with the understanding that in all cases, the DARPA contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and 17
to negotiate all instrument provisions with selectees. See Section VI.B.4 for further information on fundamental, non-fundamental and restricted research. III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION A. Eligible Applicants 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 (HBCUs), Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of this research for exclusive competition among these entities. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government entities (Government/national laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they address the following conditions. FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector AND must also provide a letter on letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement and terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be prime or subcontractors. Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority (as well as, where relevant, contractual authority) establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations. 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. 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the Proposer. B. 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 USC 203, 205, and 208). The DARPA Program Manager for this BAA is David Barnhart. 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. (Please note, the Government assessment does NOT affect, offset, or mitigate the Proposer’s own duty to give full notice and planned mitigation for all potential organizational conflicts, as discussed below.)
Without prior approval or a waiver from the DARPA Director, 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. Therefore, all Proposers as well as proposed subcontractors and consultants must affirm whether they (their organizations and individual team members) are providing SETA or similar support to any DARPA technical office(s) 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). Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposal submission. All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. The 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 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 that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the Proposer should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict to the BAA mailbox, DARPA-BAA-12-35@darpa.mil, before expending time and effort preparing a proposal and mitigation plan. C. Cost Sharing/Matching Cost sharing is not required for this particular program; however, cost sharing will be carefully considered where there is an applicable statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument (e.g., for any Other Transactions under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2371). Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort. D. Collaborative Efforts Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged. Specific content, communications, networking, and team formation are the sole responsibility of the participants. All Industry Day briefings and video recordings of the live meetings conducted March 27th are available at the following web site: http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Space_Enabled_Effects_for_Military_E ngagements_(SeeMe).aspx. IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION A. Address to Request Application Package This solicitation contains all information required to submit a proposal. No additional forms, kits, or other materials are needed. This notice constitutes the total BAA. No 19
additional information is available, nor will a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) or additional solicitation regarding this announcement be issued. Requests for the same will be disregarded. B. Content and Form of Application Submission 1. Security and Proprietary Issues
The Government anticipates proposals submitted under this BAA will be unclassified.
NOTE: If proposals are classified, the proposals must indicate the classification level of not only the proposal itself, but also the anticipated award document classification level. However, if a proposal is submitted as “Classified National Security Information” as defined by Executive Order 13526, as amended, then the information must be marked and protected as though classified at the appropriate classification level and then submitted to DARPA for a final classification determination. Security classification guidance via a DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” will not be provided at this time, since DARPA is soliciting ideas only. After reviewing the incoming proposals, if a determination is made that the award instrument may result in access to classified information; a DD Form 254 will be issued and attached as part of the award. Proposers choosing to submit a classified proposal from other classified sources must first receive permission from the respective Original Classification Authority in order to use their information in replying to this BAA. Applicable classification guide(s) should also be submitted to ensure the proposal is protected at the appropriate classification level. Classified submissions shall be appropriately and conspicuously marked with the proposed classification level and declassification date. Submissions requiring DARPA to make a final classification determination shall be marked as follows: CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION PENDING. Protect as though classified (insert the recommended classification level: (e.g., Top Secret, Secret or Confidential) Classified submissions shall be in accordance with the following guidance: Confidential and Secret Collateral Information: Use classification and marking guidance provided by previously issued security classification guides, the DoD Information Security Manual (DoDM 5200.01, Volumes 1-4), and the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) when marking and transmitting information previously classified by another Original Classification 20
Authority. Classified information at the Confidential and Secret level may be submitted via ONE of the two following methods: 1. Hand-carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR. Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA CDR at 703-526-4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery. OR 2. Mailed via appropriate U.S. Postal Service methods (e.g., (USPS) Registered Mail or USPS Express Mail). All classified information will be enclosed in opaque inner and outer covers and double wrapped. The inner envelope shall be sealed and plainly marked with the assigned classification and addresses of both sender and addressee. The inner envelope shall be addressed to: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ATTN: TTO Reference: DARPA-BAA-12-35 675 North Randolph St. Arlington, VA 22203-2114 The outer envelope shall be sealed with no identification as to the classification of its contents and addressed to: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Security & Intelligence Directorate, Attn: CDR 675 North Randolph St. Arlington, VA 22203-2114 All Top Secret materials: Top Secret information should be hand carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR. Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA CDR at 703-526-4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery. Special Access Program (SAP) Information: SAP information must be transmitted via approved methods. Prior to transmitting SAP information, contact the DARPA SAPCO at 703-526-4052 for instructions. Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI): SCI must be transmitted via approved methods. Prior to transmitting SCI, contact the DARPA Special Security Office (SSO) at 703-526-4052 for instructions. Proprietary Data: All proposals containing proprietary data should have the cover page and each page containing proprietary data clearly marked as containing proprietary data. It is the Proposer’s responsibility to clearly define to the Government what is considered proprietary data. 21
Proposers must have existing and in-place prior to execution of an award, approved capabilities (personnel and facilities) to perform research and development at the classification level they propose. It is the policy of DARPA to treat all proposals as competitive information, and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Proposals will not be returned. An electronic copy of each proposal received will be retained at DARPA and all other non-required copies destroyed. A certification of destruction may be requested, provided the formal request is received at this office within 5 days after unsuccessful notification. 2. Proposal Information
Proposers are required to submit full proposals by the time and date specified in the BAA in order to be considered during the initial round of selections. DARPA may evaluate proposals received after this date for a period up to six months from date of posting on FedBizOpps. Ability to review late submissions remains contingent on availability of funds. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled, for administrative purposes only, by a support contractor. This support contractor is prohibited from competition in DARPA technical research and is bound by appropriate nondisclosure requirements. Proposals not meeting the format described in the BAA may not be reviewed. DARPA intends to use electronic mail for correspondence regarding DARPA-BAA-1235. All administrative correspondence and questions on this solicitation, including requests for information on how to submit a full proposal to this BAA, should be sent via email to DARPA-BAA-12-35@darpa.mil. Proposals may not be submitted by fax or email; any so sent will be disregarded. 3. Full Proposal Format
All full proposals must be in the format given below. Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without review. Proposers choosing to respond to multiple technical areas should submit separate, complete proposals for each technical area. Proposals shall consist of two volumes. All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point. A minimum of 10 point font may be used for figures, tables and charts. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published only), which document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included with the submission. The bibliography and attached papers are not included in the page counts given below. The submission of other 22
supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Section II of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, shall not exceed 15 pages. Maximum page lengths for each section are shown in braces { } below. All full proposals must be written in English. 4. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal
Section I. Administrative {3 pages} A. Cover sheet to include: (1) BAA number (2) Technical area by name and number (3) Lead Organization submitting proposal (4) Type of business, selected among the following categories: - “LARGE BUSINESS,” - “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” - “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS,” - “HBCU,” - “MI,” - “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” - “OTHER NONPROFIT” (5) Contractor’s reference number (if any) (6) All other team members (if applicable and including second- and lower-tier subcontractors) and type of business for each (7) Proposal title (8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, electronic mail, fax (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, total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any) (10) Date proposal was submitted. B. Official transmittal letter C. Organizational Conflict of Interest Affirmations and Disclosure Per the instructions in Section III.B, Procurement Integrity, page 18, if the proposer or any proposed sub IS providing SETA support, as described, to any DARPA technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract (regardless of which DARPA technical office is being supported), they must provide documentation: 1) stating which office(s) the proposer, sub and/or individual supports, 2) identify the prime contract numbers AND 3) include a description of the action the proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the conflict. If the proposer or any proposed sub IS NOT currently providing SETA support as described, then the proposer should simply state “NONE.” 23
Proposals that fail to fully disclose potential conflicts of interests or do not have acceptable plans to mitigate identified conflicts will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award. D. Human Use For all proposed research that will involve human subjects in the first year or phase of the project, the institution must provide evidence of or a plan for review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) upon final proposal submission to DARPA. For further information on this subject, see Section VI.B.2 below. If human use is not a factor in a proposal, then the proposer should state “NONE.” E. Animal Use For submissions containing animal use, proposals must briefly describe plans for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) review and approval. For further information on this subject, see Section VI.B.3 below. If animal use is not a factor in a proposal, then the proposer should state “NONE.” F. Statement of Unique Capability Provided by Government or GovernmentFunded Team Member Per section III.A. Eligible Applicants, page 18, proposals which include Government or Government-funded entities (i.e., FFRDC’s, National laboratories, etc.) as prime, sub or team member, shall provide a statement which clearly demonstrates the work being provided by the Government or Government-funded entity team member is not otherwise available from the private sector. If none of the team members belongs to a Government or Government-funded entity, then the proposer should state “Not Applicable.” G. Government or Government-funded Team Member Eligibility Per section III.A. Eligible Applicants, page 18, proposals which include Government or Government-funded entities (i.e., FFRDC’s, National laboratories, etc.) as prime, sub or team member shall provide documentation including citation of the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement and terms and conditions. If no such entities are involved, then the proposer should state “NONE.” Section II. Summary of Proposal This section provides an overview of the proposed work as well as an introduction to the associated technical and management issues. Further elaboration will be provided in Section III. A. Innovative claims for the proposed research {3 pages}
This section is the centerpiece of the proposal and should succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current state-ofart alternate approaches. Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish technology transition and commercialization {3 pages} 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 not proprietary claims, this should be stated. Cost, schedule and measurable milestones for the proposed research {1 page} Include estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the prime and major subcontractors, total cost and company cost share, if applicable. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.) Technical Rationale and Approach {2 pages} Describe the technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production. (In the full proposal, this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III.) Trade study analysis of approach {2 pages} Describe an analytical trade space based on SeeMe goals, and identify how the technical approach maximizes the value in the trade space. General discussion of other research in this area {2 pages} Organization Chart {2 pages} A clearly defined organization chart for the program team which includes, as applicable: (1) the programmatic relationship of team member; (2) the unique capabilities of team members; (3) the task of responsibilities of team members; (4) the teaming strategy among the team members; and (5) the key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each year. Intellectual Property {no page limit} Per instructions for proposal Section III.B below and sections VIII.A 1 and 2, below, 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 results, prototypes, deliverables or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, prototypes and/or deliverables. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state “NONE.”
Section III. Detailed Proposal Information This 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. 25
A. Statement of Work (SOW) {up to 5} In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page length for the SOW will be dependent on the amount of the effort. The SOW must not include proprietary information. For each task/subtask, provide: • A general description of the objective (for each defined task/activity); • A detailed description of the approach to be taken to accomplish each defined task/activity); • Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution (prime, sub, team member, by name, etc.); • The completion criteria for each task/activity - a product, event or milestone that defines its completion. • Define all deliverables (reporting, data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities. • Clearly identify any tasks/subtasks (prime or subcontracted) that will be accomplished on-campus at a university. Note: It is recommended that the SOW should be developed so that each Phase of the program is separately defined. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW. B. Results, products, technology transfer {3 Pages} Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology transfer path enhancing that of Section II. B. This should also address mitigation of lifecycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S. military applications, if applicable. See also Section VIII.A. “Intellectual Property Procurement Contract Proposers.” C. Technical Approach {8 Pages} Detailed technical approach enhancing and completing that of Section II. D. Non-continuous product plan and approach {3 Pages} Identification of the supply chain relative to the technical approach and description of the cost basis for a production at cost. E. Previous Accomplishments {4 Pages} Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas. F. Facilities {2 Pages} Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort. G. Support & Teaming {2 Pages} Detailed support enhancing that of Section II, including formal teaming agreements that are required to execute this program.
H. Cost, Schedules and Measurable Milestones {3 Pages} for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the primes and major subcontractors, total cost, and any company cost share. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.) Where the effort consists of multiple portions, which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each. Additionally, proposals should clearly explain the technical approach(es) that will be employed to meet or exceed each program metric and provide ample justification as to why the approach(es) is/are feasible. The milestones must not include proprietary information. Section IV. Additional Information {No page limit} A brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published only) which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included in the submission. 5. Volume II, Cost Proposal {no page limit}
Cover sheet to include: (1) BAA number; (2) Technical area by name and number; (3) Lead Organization submitting proposal; (4) Type of business, selected among the following categories: - “LARGE BUSINESS,” - “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS,” - “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS,” - “HBCU,” - “MI,” - “OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” - “OTHER NONPROFIT” (5) Contractor’s reference number (if any); (6) All other team members (if applicable) and type of business 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; (9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), and electronic mail; (10) Award instrument requested: cost-plus-fixed-free (CPFF), cost-contract—no fee, cost sharing contract – no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction; (11) Place(s) and period(s) of performance; (12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s) (if any); 27
(13) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administration office (if known); (14) Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer’s cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit office (if known); (15) Date proposal was prepared; (16) DUNS number; (17) TIN number; and (18) Cage Code; (19) Subcontractor Information; and (20) Proposal validity period. Detailed cost breakdown to include: (1) total program cost broken down by major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs, overhead charges, etc.) and further broken down by task and phase; (2) major program tasks by fiscal year; (3) an itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases; (4) an itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined in FAR Part 2.101; NOTE: for IT and equipment purchases, include a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding. (5) a summary of projected funding requirements by month; (6) the source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing; and (7) identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Expert/s, etc.). NOTE: for IT and equipment purchases, include a letter stating why the Proposer cannot provide the requested resources from its own funding. (8) The prime contractor is responsible for compiling and providing all subcontractor proposals for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Subcontractor proposals should include Interdivisional Work Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements. Where the effort consists of multiple portions, which could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each. Supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates in B. above. Include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation. Note: “cost or pricing data” as defined in FAR Subpart 15.4 shall be required if the proposer is seeking a procurement contract award of $700,000 or greater unless the proposer requests an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. “Cost or pricing data” are not required if the proposer proposes an award instrument other than a procurement contract (e.g., an other transaction.) All proprietary subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime shall be provided to the Government either by the prime contractor or by the subcontractor organization when the proposal is submitted. Subcontractor proposals submitted to the Government by the prime contractor should be submitted in a 28
sealed envelope that the prime contractor will not be allowed to view. The subcontractor must provide the same number of hard copies and/or electronic proposals as required of the prime contractor. NOTE: PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT EVALUATION RATINGS MAY BE LOWERED AND/OR PROPOSALS REJECTED IF SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED. The Government may award either a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract or an Other Transaction Authority for Prototypes (OTA) agreement for prototype system development proposals. Proposers interested in receiving an OTA and where cost share is required are asked to submit proposal responses that accommodate both options. The government must be able to determine that the amount of the agreement is fair and reasonable and determine the final type of award to negotiate. Without complete cost volumes, it may not be possible to thoroughly understand what is being offered. For information on 845 Other Transaction Authority for Prototypes (OTA) agreements, refer to http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/Contract_Management/Other_Transactions_and_ Technology_Investment_Agreements.aspx. All proposers requesting an 845 Other Transaction Authority for Prototypes (OTA) agreement must include a detailed list of milestones. Each such milestone must include the following: milestone description, completion criteria, due date, payment/funding schedule (to include, if cost share is proposed, contractor and Government share amounts). It is noted that, at a minimum, such milestones should relate directly to accomplishment of program technical metrics as defined in the BAA and/or the proposer’s proposal. Agreement type, fixed price or expenditure based, will be subject to negotiation by the Agreements Officer; however, it is noted that the Government prefers use of fixed price milestones with a payment/funding schedule to the maximum extent possible. Do not include proprietary data. If the proposer requests award of an 845 OTA agreement as a nontraditional defense contractor, as so defined in the OSD guide entitled “Other Transactions (OT) Guide For Prototype Projects” dated January 2001 (as amended) (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/otguide.doc), information must be included in the cost proposal to support the claim. Additionally, if the proposer requests award of an 845 OTA agreement, without the required one-third (1/3) cost share, information must be included in the cost proposal supporting that there is at least one non-traditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent in the proposed prototype project. C. Submission Dates and Times 1. Full Proposal Date
Proposers should submit two (2) hard copies of their proposal and two (2) electronic CDROMs containing the entire proposal as a single Adobe PDF file to the following address: DARPA/TTO Attn: DARPA-BAA-12-35 29
675 North Randolph St. Arlington, VA 22203-2114 No emailed or faxed proposals will be accepted. The initial deadline for proposal submissions is 2:30pm Eastern Time on June 29, 2012. The closing date for this BAA is 2:30pm Eastern Time on November 9, 2012. The dates and times indicated are deadlines by which proposals must be received by DARPA. Proposers are required to submit proposals by the time and date specified in the BAA in order to be considered during the initial round of selections. DARPA may evaluate proposals received after this date for a period up to up to six months (180 days) from date of posting on FedBizOpps. Ability to review late submissions remains contingent on availability of funds. Proposers are warned that the likelihood of funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the initial closing date deadline. DARPA will acknowledge receipt of complete submissions via email and assign control numbers that should be used in all further correspondence regarding proposals. DARPA will post a consolidated Question and Answer response after May 31, 2012, before final full proposals are due. In order to receive a response to your question, submit your question by May 23, 2012 to the BAA mailbox DARPA-BAA-12-35@darpa.mil. Failure to comply with the submission procedures may result in the submission not being evaluated. D. Intergovernmental Review (if applicable) Not Applicable E. Funding Restrictions Not Applicable V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION A. Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance: (1) Overall Scientific and Technical Merit; (2) Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission; (3) Cost Realism; (4) Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition; and (5) Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience. 1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit
The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, complete and supported by a proposed technical team that has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements 30
provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final outcome that achieves the goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal identifies major technical risks and planned mitigation efforts are clearly defined and feasible. 2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission
The potential contributions of the proposed effort with relevance to the national technology base will be evaluated. Specifically, DARPA’s mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their application. 3. Cost Realism
The objective of this criterion is to establish that the proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach offered, as well as to determine the proposer’s practical understanding of the effort. The proposal will be reviewed to determine if the costs proposed are based on realistic assumptions, reflect a sufficient understanding of the technical goals and objectives of the BAA, and are consistent with the proposer’s technical approach (to include the proposed Statement of Work). At a minimum, this will involve review, at the prime and subcontract level, of the type and number of labor hours proposed per task as well as the types and kinds of materials, equipment and fabrication costs proposed. It is expected that the effort will leverage all available relevant prior research in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding. For efforts with a likelihood of commercial application, appropriate direct cost sharing may be a positive factor in the evaluation. The evaluation criterion recognizes that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to offer low-risk ideas with minimum uncertainty and to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more competitive posture. DARPA discourages such cost strategies. 4. Plans and Capability to Accomplish Technology Transition
The proposer will be evaluated on their capability to transition the technology to the research, industrial, and/or operational military communities in such a way as to enhance U.S. defense. In addition, the evaluation will take into consideration the extent to which the proposed intellectual property (IP) rights will potentially impact the Government’s ability to transition the technology to the research, industrial, and operational military communities. 5. Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience
The proposer’s prior experience in similar efforts must clearly demonstrate the ability to deliver the proposed technical performance within the proposed budget and schedule. The proposal should demonstrate that the proposed team has the expertise to manage the cost and schedule. Similar efforts completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area should be fully described. 31
B. Review and Selection Process Evaluation of proposals will be accomplished through a scientific/technical review of each proposal. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. DARPA’s intent is to review proposals as soon as possible after they arrive; however, proposals may be reviewed periodically for administrative reasons. Award(s) will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered, including the potential contributions of the proposed work to the overall research program and the availability of funding for the effort. It is the policy of DARPA to ensure impartial, equitable, comprehensive proposal evaluations and to select the source (or sources) whose offer meets the Government's technical, policy, and programmatic goals. Pursuant to FAR 35.016, the primary basis for selecting proposals for acceptance shall be technical, importance to agency programs, and fund availability. In order to provide the desired evaluation, qualified Government personnel will conduct reviews and (if necessary) convene panels of experts in the appropriate areas. For evaluation purposes, a proposal is the document described in “Proposal Information,” Section IV.B. Other supporting or background materials submitted with the proposal will be considered for the reviewer's convenience only and not considered as part of the proposal. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes by support contractors. These support contractors are prohibited from competition in DARPA technical research and are bound by appropriate non-disclosure requirements. Subject to the restrictions set forth in FAR 37.203(d), input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by DARPA from non-Government consultants /experts who are strictly bound by the appropriate non-disclosure requirements. It is the policy of DARPA to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. No proposals will be returned. After proposals have been evaluated and selections made, an electronic copy of each proposal received will be retained at DARPA and all other copies will be destroyed. VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION A. Selection Notices As soon as the evaluation of a proposal is complete, the proposer will be notified that 1) the proposal has been selected for funding pending contract negotiations, or 2) the 32
proposal has not been selected. These official notifications will be sent via email to the technical point of contact identified on the proposal cover sheet. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Meeting and Travel Requirements
There will be an initial program kickoff meeting in the Arlington, VA vicinity and all key participants are required to attend. All milestone reviews (as identified in Figure 1) will be conducted in the form of Principal Investigator (PI) meetings at which all performers across the various technical areas will be present with the intention to share the status, technical details, and interface issues openly. Due to the highly inter-related nature of many of the technical areas this will be a requirement for participation. Program contract deliverables will only be accepted at the PI meetings, not separately from the PI team structure by DARPA. Selected performers will be required to adhere to this method of delivery and sharing to be compliant with the SeeMe program BAA technical areas. The PI meetings will be held at Government-furnished facilities in major U.S. or international metropolitan areas with easy access by air. The Government reserves the option to make the PI meetings open events to the extent consistent with ITAR and export control law and regulations. To facilitate the exchange of information between performers within and across technical areas, selected proposers may be required to implement an associate contractor agreement (ACA) as a condition for contract award. Performers should also anticipate periodic site visits at the Program Manager’s discretion to the Arlington, VA vicinity or other appropriate location. DARPA plans to utilize Adobe Connect to facilitate periodic team or PI technical meetings without requiring travel. 2. Human Use
All research involving human subjects, to include use of human biological specimens and human data, selected for funding must comply with the federal regulations for human subject protection. Further, research involving human subjects that is conducted or supported by the DoD must comply with 32 CFR 219, Protection of Human Subjects http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/32cfr219_07.html) and DoD Directive 3216.02, Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoDSupported Research (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321602p.pdf). Institutions awarded funding for research involving human subjects must provide documentation of a current Assurance of Compliance with Federal regulations for human subject protection, for example a Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protection Federal Wide Assurance (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp). All institutions engaged in human subject research, to include subcontractors, must also have a valid Assurance. In addition, personnel involved in human subjects research must provide documentation of completing appropriate training for the protection of human subjects.
For all proposed research that will involve human subjects in the first year or phase of the project, the institution must provide evidence of or a plan for review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) upon final proposal submission to DARPA. The IRB conducting the review must be the IRB identified on the institution’s Assurance. The protocol, separate from the proposal, must include a detailed description of the research plan, study population, risks and benefits of study participation, recruitment and consent process, data collection, and data analysis. Consult the designated IRB for guidance on writing the protocol. The informed consent document must comply with federal regulations (32 CFR 219.116). A valid Assurance along with evidence of appropriate training all investigators should all accompany the protocol for review by the IRB. In addition to a local IRB approval, a headquarters-level human subjects regulatory review and approval is required for all research conducted or supported by the DoD. The Army, Navy, or Air Force office responsible for managing the award can provide guidance and information about their component’s headquarters-level review process. Note that confirmation of a current Assurance and appropriate human subjects protection training is required before headquarters-level approval can be issued. The amount of time required to complete the IRB review/approval process may vary depending on the complexity of the research and/or the level of risk to study participants. Ample time should be allotted to complete the approval process. The IRB approval process can last between one to three months, followed by a DoD review that could last between three to six months. No DoD/DARPA funding can be used towards human subjects research until ALL approvals are granted. 3. Animal Use
Any Recipient performing research, experimentation, or testing involving the use of animals shall comply with the rules on animal acquisition, transport, care, handling, and use in: (i) 9 CFR parts 1-4, Department of Agriculture rules that implement the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 2131-2159); (ii) the guidelines described in National Institutes of Health Publication No. 86-23, “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals”; (iii) DoD Directive 3216.01, “Use of Laboratory Animals in DoD Program.” For submissions containing animal use, proposals should briefly describe plans for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) review and approval. Animal studies in the program will be expected to comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm. All Recipients must receive approval by a DoD certified veterinarian, in addition to an IACUC approval. No animal studies may be conducted using DoD/DARPA funding until the USAMRMC Animal Care and Use Review Office (ACURO) or other appropriate DoD veterinary office(s) grant approval. As a part of this secondary review process, the Recipient will be required to complete and submit an ACURO Animal Use Appendix, which may be found at https://mrmc-www.army.mil/index.cfm?pageid=Research_Protections.acuro&rn=1. 34
It is the policy of the Department of Defense that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. The definition of Contracted Fundamental Research is: “Contracted Fundamental Research includes [research performed under] grants and contracts that are (a) funded by budget category 6.1 (Basic Research), whether performed by universities or industry or (b) funded by budget category 6.2 (Applied Research) and performed on-campus at a university. The research shall not be considered fundamental in those rare and exceptional circumstances where the applied research effort presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense, and where agreement on restrictions have been recorded in the contract or grant.” Such research is referred to by DARPA as “Restricted Research.” Pursuant to DoD policy, research performed under grants and contracts that are (a) funded by budget category 6.2 (Applied Research) and NOT performed on-campus at a university or (b) funded by budget category 6.3 (Advanced Technology Development) does not meet the definition of fundamental research. Publication restrictions will be placed on all such research. Research to be performed as a result of this BAA is expected to be Non-fundamental. DARPA permission must be received before publishing any information or results relative to the program. Other restrictions may also apply. Proposers are advised if they propose grants or cooperative agreements, DARPA may elect to award other award instruments due to the need to apply publication or other restrictions. DARPA will make this election if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed program 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 and will be considered Restricted Research. For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the Prime Contractor is Restricted Research, a subcontractor may be conducting Contracted Fundamental Research. In those cases, it is the Prime Contractor’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subcontractor’s effort is Contracted Fundamental Research. The following same or similar provision will be incorporated into any resultant Restricted Research or Non-Fundamental Research procurement contract or other transaction: There shall be no dissemination or publication, except within and between the Contractor and any subcontractors, of information developed under this contract 35
or contained in the reports to be furnished pursuant to this contract without prior written approval of DARPA’s Public Release Center (DARPA/PRC). All technical reports will be given proper review by appropriate authority to determine which Distribution Statement is to be applied prior to the initial distribution of these reports by the Contractor. With regard to subcontractor proposals for Contracted Fundamental Research, papers resulting from unclassified contracted fundamental research are exempt from prepublication controls and this review requirement, pursuant to DoD Instruction 5230.27 dated October 6, 1987. When submitting material for written approval for open publication, the Contractor/Awardee must submit a request for public release to the PRC and include the following information: 1) Document Information: document title, document author, short plain-language description of technology discussed in the material (approx. 30 words), number of pages (or minutes of video) and document type (briefing, report, abstract, article, or paper); 2) Event Information: event type (conference, principle investigator meeting, article or paper), event date, desired date for DARPA's approval; 3) DARPA Sponsor: DARPA Program Manager, DARPA office, and contract number; and 4) Contractor/Awardee's Information: POC name, email and phone. Allow four weeks for processing; due dates under four weeks require a justification. Unusual electronic file formats may require additional processing time. Requests can be sent either via email to prc@darpa.mil or via 675 North Randolph St, Arlington VA 22203, telephone (571) 218-4235. Refer to http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Public_Release_Center/Public_Release_Cente r.aspx for information about DARPA's public release process. 5. Export Control
The following clause will be included in all procurement contracts, and may be included in Other Transactions as deemed appropriate: (a) Definition. “Export-controlled items,” as used in this clause, means items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR Parts 730-774) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120-130). The term includes: 1) “Defense items,” defined in the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778(j)(4)(A), as defense articles, defense services, and related technical data, and further defined in the ITAR, 22 CFR Part 120. 2) “Items,” defined in the EAR as “commodities,” “software,” and “technology,” terms that are also defined in the EAR, 15 CFR 772.1. (b) The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items, including, but not limited to, the requirement for contractors to register with the Department of State in accordance with the ITAR. The Contractor shall 36
consult with the Department of State regarding any questions relating to compliance with the ITAR and shall consult with the Department of Commerce regarding any questions relating to compliance with the EAR. (c) The Contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information provided by this clause. (d) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive orders, and regulations, including but not limited to— (1) The Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401, et seq.); (2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.); (3) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.); (4) The Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774); (5) The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Parts 120-130); and (6) Executive Order 13222, as extended; (e) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts. 6. Subcontracting
Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)), it is the policy of the Government to enable small business and small disadvantaged business concerns to be considered fairly as subcontractors to contractors performing work or rendering services as prime contractors or subcontractors under Government contracts, and to assure that prime contractors and subcontractors carry out this policy. Each proposer who submits a contract proposal and includes subcontractors is required to submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 19.702(a) (1) and (2) should do so with their proposal. The plan format is outlined in FAR 19.704. 7. Employment Eligibility Verification
As per FAR 22.1802, recipients of FAR-based procurement contracts must enroll as Federal Contractors in E-verify and use E-Verify to verify employment eligibility of all employees assigned to the award. All resultant contracts from this solicitation will include FAR 52.222-54, “Employment Eligibility Verification.” This clause will not be included in Other Transactions. 37
8. Central Requirements
Unless the proposer is exempt from this requirement, as per FAR 4.1102 or 2 CFR 25.110, as applicable, all proposers must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and have a valid Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number prior to submitting a proposal. Information on CCR registration is available at http://www.ccr.gov. All proposers must maintain an active CCR registration with current information at all times during which they have an active Federal award or proposal under consideration by DARPA. All proposers must provide the DUNS number in each proposal they submit. DARPA cannot make an assistance award to a proposer until the proposer has provided a valid DUNS number and has maintained an active CCR registration with current information. 9. Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards
The FAR clause 52.204-10, “Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards,” will be used in all procurement contracts valued at $25,000 or more. A similar award term will be used in all grants and cooperative agreements. 10. Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters
FAR clause 52.209-9, Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matter, will be included in all contracts valued at $500,000 where the contractor has current active Federal contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000. 11. Representation by Corporations Regarding Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction Under Any Federal Law Each proposer must complete and return the representations in paragraph (b) below with their proposal submission. (a) In accordance with sections 8124 and 8125 of Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74) none of the funds made available by that Act may be used to enter into a contract with any corporation that – (1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. (b) The Offeror represents that – (1) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, (2) It is [ ] is not [ ] a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violated under Federal law within the preceding 24 months. 12. Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification (Deviation 2012-00003 (JAN 2012) As per FAR 52.230-2, amended by Deviation 2012-00003 (JAN 2012), any procurement contract in excess of $700,000 resulting from this solicitation will be subject to the requirements of the Cost Accounting Standards Board (48 CFR Chapter 99), except those contracts which are exempt as specified in 48 CFR 9903.201-1. Any offeror submitting a proposal which, if accepted, will result in a cost accounting standards (CAS) compliant contract, must submit representations and a Disclosure Statement as required by 48 CFR 9903.202 detailed in FAR 52.230-2. 13. Controlled Unclassified Information on Non-DoD Information Systems
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) refers to unclassified information that does not meet the standards for National Security Classification but is pertinent to the national interests of the United States or to the important interests of entities outside the Federal Government and under law or policy requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, special handling safeguards, or prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination. All non-DoD entities doing business with DARPA are expected to adhere to the following procedural safeguards, in addition to any other relevant Federal or DoD specific procedures, for submission of any proposals to DARPA and any potential business with DARPA:   Do not process DARPA CUI on publicly available computers or post DARPA CUI to publicly available webpages or websites that have access limited only by domain or Internet protocol restriction. Ensure that all DARPA CUI is protected by a physical or electronic barrier when not under direct individual control of an authorized user and limit the transfer or DARPA CUI to subcontractors or teaming partners with a need to know and commitment to this level of protection.
Ensure that DARPA CUI on mobile computing devices is identified and encrypted and all communications on mobile devices or through wireless connections are protected and encrypted. Overwrite media that has been used to process DARPA CUI before external release or disposal.
C. Reporting The number and types of reports will be specified in the award document, but will include as a minimum monthly financial and technical status reports. The reports shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the procedures contained in the award document and mutually agreed on before award. Apart from the delivery of items identified at the Milestones identified in Figure 1, proposers are free to propose an appropriate schedule of reviewable interim milestones. These milestones should have concrete interim deliverables (e.g., code builds, demo runs, draft documentation, prototype demos, etc.) and quantitative metrics (e.g., revisits of key performance attributes for the specific technical area) associated with them. Reports and briefing material may also be required as appropriate to document progress in accomplishing program metrics. A Final Report that summarizes the project and tasks will be required at the conclusion of the performance period for the award, notwithstanding the fact that the research may be continued under a follow-on vehicle. The Final Report should contain all relevant technical information to summarize the performers activities and findings, and a summary technical manuscript of publishable quality suitable for input to DARPA public release process for publication in a journal or conference proceeding. At least one copy of each report provided by the performer will be delivered to DARPA for archival purposes and not merely placed on an internet site. D. Electronic Systems 1. Representations and Certifications
In accordance with FAR 4.1201, prospective proposers shall complete electronic annual representations and certifications at http://orca.bpn.gov. 2. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)
Unless using another approved electronic invoicing system, performers will be required to submit invoices for payment directly via the Internet/WAWF at http://wawf.eb.mil. Registration to WAWF will be required prior to any award under this BAA. 3. i-Edison
All required invention and patent reporting shall be accomplished, as applicable, using the i-Edison.gov reporting website at (http://s-edison.info.nih.gov/iEdison).
VII. AGENCY CONTACTS The preferred method for communication in regard to this BAA is via email. Administrative, technical or contractual questions should be sent via email to DARPA-BAA-12-35@darpa.mil. If email is not available, fax questions to 703-5168725, Attention: DARPA-BAA-12-35. All requests must include the name, email address, and phone number of a point of contact. Agency contacts – Mr. David Barnhart, Program Manager, DARPA/TTO ATTN: DARPA-BAA-12-35 675 North Randolph St. Arlington, VA 22203-2114 FAX: 703-516-8725 EMAIL: DARPA-BAA-12-35@darpa.mil VIII. OTHER INFORMATION A. Intellectual Property Procurement Contract Proposers 1. Noncommercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)
Proposers responding to this BAA requesting a procurement contract to be issued under the FAR/DFARS shall identify all noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software that it plans to generate, develop, and/or deliver under any proposed award instrument in which the Government will acquire less than unlimited rights, and to assert specific restrictions on those deliverables. Proposers shall follow the format under DFARS 252.227-7017 for this stated purpose. In the event that proposers do not submit the list, the Government will assume that it automatically has “unlimited rights” to all noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software generated, developed, and/or delivered under any award instrument, unless it is substantiated that development of the noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software occurred with mixed funding. If mixed funding is anticipated in the development of noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software generated, developed, and/or delivered under any award instrument, then proposers should identify the data and software in question, as subject to Government Purpose Rights (GPR). In accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data - Noncommercial Items, and DFARS 252.227-7014 Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation, the Government will automatically assume that any such GPR restriction is limited to a period of five (5) years in accordance with the applicable DFARS clauses, at which time the Government will acquire “unlimited rights” unless the parties agree otherwise. Proposers are admonished that the Government will use the list during the evaluation process to evaluate the impact of any identified restrictions and may request additional information from the proposer, as may be necessary, to evaluate the proposer’s assertions. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state “NONE.” It is noted an assertion of “NONE” indicates that the Government has “unlimited rights” to all noncommercial technical data and 41
noncommercial computer software delivered under the award instrument, in accordance with the DFARS provisions cited above. Failure to provide full information may result in a determination that the proposal is not compliant with the BAA – resulting in nonselectability of the proposal. A sample list for complying with this request is as follows: NONCOMMERCIAL Technical Data Summary of Basis for Asserted Computer Intended Use in Assertion Rights Software To be the Conduct of Category Furnished With the Research Restrictions (LIST) (NARRATIVE) (LIST) (LIST) 2. Name of Person Asserting Restrictions
Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)
Proposers responding to this BAA requesting a procurement contract to be issued under the FAR/DFARS shall identify all commercial technical data and commercial computer software that may be embedded in any noncommercial deliverables contemplated under the research effort, along with any applicable restrictions on the Government’s use of such commercial technical data and/or commercial computer software. In the event that proposers do not submit the list, the Government will assume that there are no restrictions on the Government’s use of such commercial items. The Government may use the list during the evaluation process to evaluate the impact of any identified restrictions and may request additional information from the proposer, as may be necessary, to evaluate the proposer’s assertions. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state “NONE.” Failure to provide full information may result in a determination that the proposal is not compliant with the BAA – resulting in nonselectability of the proposal. A sample list for complying with this request is as follows: Technical Data Computer Software To be Furnished With Restrictions (LIST) COMMERCIAL Basis for Asserted Rights Assertion Category (LIST) (LIST) Name of Person Asserting Restrictions (LIST)
B. Non-Procurement Contract Proposers – Noncommercial and Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) Proposers responding to this BAA requesting a Grant, Cooperative Agreement, Technology Investment Agreement, or Other Transaction for Prototype shall follow the applicable rules and regulations governing these various award instruments, but in all 42
cases should appropriately identify any potential restrictions on the Government’s use of any Intellectual Property contemplated under those award instruments in question. This includes both Noncommercial Items and Commercial Items. Although not required, proposers may use a format similar to that described in Paragraphs 1.a and 1.b above. The Government may use the list during the evaluation process to evaluate the impact of any identified restrictions, and may request additional information from the proposer, as may be necessary, to evaluate the proposer’s assertions. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state “NONE.” Failure to provide full information may result in a determination that the proposal is not compliant with the BAA – resulting in nonselectability of the proposal. C. All Proposers – Patents Include documentation proving your ownership of or possession of appropriate licensing rights to all patented inventions (or inventions for which a patent application has been filed) that will be utilized under your proposal for the DARPA program. If a patent application has been filed for an invention that your proposal utilizes, but the application has not yet been made publicly available and contains proprietary information, you may provide only the patent number, inventor name(s), assignee names (if any), filing date, filing date of any related provisional application, and a summary of the patent title, together with either: 1) a representation that you own the invention, or 2) proof of possession of appropriate licensing rights in the invention. D. All Proposers – Intellectual Property Representations Provide a good faith representation that you either own or possess appropriate licensing rights to all other intellectual property that will be utilized under your proposal for the DARPA program. Additionally, proposers shall provide a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights that describes the nature of the restriction and the intended use of the intellectual property in the conduct of the proposed research.
Documents Similar To Darpa
Satellite_Communication_1
CR Methods Part1
A Short Summary of Ethical (SS1)
essay 2 english 113b
Foreign Literature(Edit)
Validation Process R14 Short 2013-04-23
13 Deac
Code of Ethics 1207
2011 board handbook
LB Overview DRM
How Well Should a Maintenance Job Be Planned
fcic_agendae_20100120.pdf
fcic_agenda_20091214.pdf
GP2D12_15
More From Jeffy Wolfy
New IRS Scandal 052113
APCCAS08
Result of 3 days
Darpa will be available on