Broad Agency Announcement Strategic Technologies Strategic Technology Office HR001120S0034 Amendment 1

Broad Agency Announcement
Strategic Technologies
STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY OFFICE
HR001120S0034
Amendment 1
February 16, 2021
HR001120S0034
Summary of Amendment 1 Changes:
The purpose of this amendment is to make the following revision, which is highlighted in yellow
on pages 5 and 31:
1. Update the BAA closing date/deadline to submit an executive summary, abstract,

and/or proposal to October 31, 2021, 4:00PM Eastern.
2
HR001120S0034
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................5

1.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ............................................................................................5
1.1.1 Mosaic Technologies..............................................................................................6
1.1.2 Mosaic Effects Web Services (EWS)....................................................................8
1.1.3 Mosaic Experimentation .....................................................................................10
1.1.4 Foundational Strategic Technologies and Systems...........................................11
2. AWARD INFORMATION...............................................................................................11
2.1 Fundamental Research ...............................................................................................12
3. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION.....................................................................................13
3.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.........................................................................................13
3.1.1 United States Enterprises to Include: ................................................................13
3.1.2 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and
Government Entities............................................................................................13
3.1.3 Non-U.S. Organizations.......................................................................................14
3.1.4 Applicants Considering Classified Submissions ...............................................14
3.2 Organizational Conflicts of Interest ..........................................................................14
3.3 COST SHARING/MATCHING ................................................................................15
3.4 OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................15
3.4.1 Collaborative Efforts ...........................................................................................15
4. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION ..............................................15
4.1 ADDRESS TO REQUEST APPLICATION PACKAGE .......................................15
4.2 CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION ..............................16
4.2.1 Security and Proprietary Issues .........................................................................16
4.2.2 Executive Summary, Abstract, and Proposal Information .............................19
4.2.3 Restrictive Markings on Proposals ....................................................................22
4.2.4 Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered
Defense Information Controls ............................................................................22
4.3 FORMATTING CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................23
4.3.1 Executive Summary Format ...............................................................................23
4.3.2 Proposal Abstract Format ..................................................................................23
4.3.3 Proposal Format ..................................................................................................25
4.4 SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES........................................................................30
4.4.1 Executive Summary, Abstract, and Proposal Submission Deadline...............30
4.5 FUNDING RESTRICTIONS .....................................................................................30
4.6 OTHER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................30
5. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION.................................................................31
5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA.......................................................................................31
5.1.1 Overall Scientific and Technical Merit..............................................................31
5.1.2 Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission.......................31
5.1.3 Cost Realism.........................................................................................................31
3
HR001120S0034
5.2 REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS.................................................................32

6. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION .........................................................32
6.1 SELECTION NOTICES and notifications ...............................................................32
6.1.1 Executive Summaries ..........................................................................................32
6.1.2 Abstracts...............................................................................................................33
6.1.3 Proposals...............................................................................................................33
6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS ................33
6.2.1 Meeting and Travel Requirements.....................................................................33
6.2.2 FAR and DFARS Clauses ...................................................................................33
6.2.3 Human Subjects Research (HSR)/Animal Use .................................................33
6.2.4 Grant Abstract .....................................................................................................33
6.2.5 Subcontracting .....................................................................................................34
6.2.6 Electronic and Information Technology............................................................34
6.2.7 System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier
Requirements .......................................................................................................34
6.2.8 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information
Systems..................................................................................................................34
6.2.9 Terms and Conditions .........................................................................................34
6.2.10 Representations and Certifications ....................................................................34
6.3 REPORTING...............................................................................................................34
6.4 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS ........................................................................................35
6.4.1 Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) .......................................................................35
6.4.2 i-EDISON..............................................................................................................35
7. AGENCY CONTACTS ....................................................................................................35
8. OTHER INFORMATION................................................................................................35
8.1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ................................................................................35
8.1.1 Procurement Contract.........................................................................................36
8.1.2 Nonprocurement Contract..................................................................................36
9. APPENDIX 1: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY..........................................................37
10. APPENDIX 2: VOLUME 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE.........................................39
11. APPENDIX 3: VOLUME 2 COVER SHEET, CHECKLIST AND SAMPLE
TEMPLATES ....................................................................................................................40
4
HR001120S0034
PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION
 Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),

Strategic Technology Office
 Funding Opportunity Title – Strategic Technologies
 Announcement Type –Initial announcement
 Funding Opportunity Number – HR001120S0034
 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) - Not Applicable
 Dates
o Posting Date: February 29, 2020
o BAA Closing Date: October 31, 2021
 Anticipated individual awards - Multiple awards are anticipated.

 Types of instruments that may be awarded - Procurement contract, grant, cooperative
agreement, or other transaction.
 Agency contact
o Points of Contact
The BAA Coordinator for this effort may be reached at:
HR001120S0034@darpa.mil
DARPA/STO
ATTN: HR001120S0034
675 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-2114
5
HR001120S0034
PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT
1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant
award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or
awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as
specified in the BAA.
Proposed research should investigate approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science,
devices, or systems. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) anticipates
funding a limited number of proposals under this BAA. Specifically excluded are existing mature
solutions and research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to existing
technologies.
1.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
DARPA’s Strategic Technology Office (STO) is seeking innovative ideas and disruptive
technologies that provide the U.S. military increased lethality in an era of eroding dominance.
For decades, the U.S. military has enjoyed overwhelming dominance in all domains by virtue of
the performance and sophistication of its weapon systems. Unfortunately, this dominance is
being challenged by peer competitors, who have had decades to study our strengths, and are hard
at work developing counters to degrade the advantages we currently possess.
It is becoming evident that the U.S. cannot solve this dilemma by continuing legacy practices of
building the next bigger, faster, more powerful, more survivable version of what came before. A
new paradigm is needed that values “lethality” over monolithic system dominance. Whereas
dominance is measured by comparing capabilities across systems, lethality is measured by the
ability to deliver a desired effect at will, regardless of the system or systems of systems involved.
DARPA/STO aims to provide the U.S. military lethality using a strategy called Mosaic Warfare:
fast, scalable, adaptive joint multi-domain lethality. It is the disaggregation of effects chain
functions (e.g., Find, Fix, Target, Track, Engage, and Assess or F2T2EA) across a heterogeneous
mix of manned and unmanned platforms from all domains. Furthermore, it is the ability to
compose and recompose effects chains at high speed without a prior knowledge of which
systems will provide which function(s) of a given effects chain. The result presents an adversary
with an overwhelming, diverse set of kinetic and non-kinetic effect decision dilemmas without
common counters or failure modes.
To achieve this ambitious vision, DARPA/STO is seeking innovative ideas and disruptive
technologies within the focus areas of the broader Mosaic Warfare objective: Mosaic
Technologies, Mosaic Effects Web Services (EWS), and Mosaic Experimentation.
6
HR001120S0034
Research supporting any of STO's broad mission objectives identified in the Funding
Opportunity Description above may be submitted under this BAA. Topic areas of specific
interest include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.1.1 Mosaic Technologies
For the past several years, DARPA/STO has been developing technology to fight as a distributed
network of heterogeneous capabilities – a system of systems. Recently, DARPA/STO expanded
the concept to make system of systems adaptable at mission speed - a mosaic. Instead of
manually integrating elements into a rigid, monolithic system of systems architecture, we strive
to develop all of the infrastructure technologies needed to compose specific, fleeting system of
systems implementations with a confederated collection of capabilities. In the ultimate vision,
the warfighter can arrive at the battlespace and immediately compose a desired effect from
whatever capabilities are available.
To continue the progression toward Mosaic Warfare, new technology is needed to enable
warfighters to select between and reconfigure effects chains at mission speed rather than as
development activities. Ultimately, DARPA/STO’s goal is to provide tools to enable
commanders to build and operate effects chains on-the-fly with whichever capabilities are
present in the battlespace.
To understand the range of capabilities required to make “Mosaic Warfare” real, one may think
of technologies or capabilities that fall within one or more of three functional areas: Planning
and Composition, Interoperability, and Execution. DARPA/STO is seeking technologies that
can provide solutions to automate or accelerate the following functions.
1.1.1.1 Planning and Composition
A commander leading a Mosaic Warfare-based force needs automated decision aids and other
tools to determine what that basic force should look like. These technologies should empower a
theater commander to perform at campaign planning time what today occurs through years of
operations analysis, war gaming, exercises, requirements analysis, and doctrine development.
These tools need to answer questions including, but not limited to:
 Effects: What effects provide the best likelihood of meeting campaign objectives? How
can deterrence and de-escalation be achieved? How can deterrent effects be created
while preserving surprise?
 Force Composition: How should a commander provision assets for the battle? What
elements should be used to deliver a desired effect? How should these assets be
organized? How can we understand logistics flow and readiness to know how and when
these assets will be available? How can the probability of success of a given effects chain
be “verified” against situation uncertainties?
 Strategy and Mission Planning: How would different effects chains be employed at
different times during a campaign? What information is needed to make these decisions
and plan the effects? How can this information be acquired?
7
HR001120S0034
1.1.1.2 Interoperability
Once a commander has decided upon a Mosaic Warfare force package, a range of new
technologies are needed to implement this new warfighting architecture, specifically technology
for machine-to-machine interoperability. The ultimate vision is to replace what occurs today
after years of mostly manual system engineering with global interoperability at mission speed.
DARPA/STO is particularly interested in approaches to global interoperability that do not rely
upon the creation of and adherence to rigid global standards. To achieve this vision, technology
is needed to address issues such as the following:
 Communications: How do we provide assured high-capacity mobile communication

capabilities in space, air, ground, sea surface, and underwater environments (to include
systems with and without access to infrastructure)? How can we better communicate
across physical domains? Are there ways to create a greater density of links, potentially
leveraging indigenous infrastructure and non-traditional communication channels? Are
there ways to make heterogeneous links more interoperable, even when they have
different physical-layer protocols? Are there ways to make links more discoverable and
configurable to support dynamic networking? Are there new radio and device
technologies that can enable faster integration of new waveforms, greater adaptability,
and more options to serve as gateways between networks?
 Networking: How can we improve network availability, increase network capacity and
scaling, enable tolerance to network degradation, mitigate extremely high levels of man-
made and natural electromagnetic interference, defeat network and RF exploitation
techniques, and counter denial of service techniques? How can we rapidly create new
“networks of networks” by creating secure virtual networks over a collection of
heterogeneous communications paths? What are ways to automate the configuration and
management of these virtualized networks; i.e. “C2 of C”? Can this network
management be tied to mission and information needs in a way that adapts to changing
combat situations? What are novel approaches to securing the confidentiality and
integrity of data on these networks? Are there new approaches to managing information
flow across security levels and enclaves? How can we ensure interoperability with
coalition partners and other allies while providing the greatest amount of adaptability and
ease of configuration and protecting operations and the integrity of U.S. networks?
 Software Integration: Assuming messages can be passed between systems, how can
they understand each other if there exists no common data standard? Can non-native
software be made to run on various system elements? How can integration, testing, and
risk management certification be accelerated or automated? Can execution be monitored
and verified in real-time to prevent natural errors and malicious cyberattacks? How do
we enable forwards and backwards compatibility with legacy and future systems?
1.1.1.3 Execution
Once a Mosaic Warfare force package has been defined and integrated, technology is needed to
operate it at scale. This should involve a combination of battle management decision support
technology combined with machine autonomy. Technology is needed to address challenges such
as the following:
8
HR001120S0034
 Resource Management: How should assets be assigned to a particular effects chain at a

given moment in a battle? How can we re-allocate capabilities at combat speed? How
can this be “optimized” when there are multiple simultaneous objectives across different
commands and domains competing for the same pool of resources? How can assets be
“abstracted” at this level, so that minimal detailed knowledge is needed to make resource
allocation decisions? How can resource management be made more hierarchical, to
manage complexity across a force (e.g., swarm controllers that do not need to understand
theater-level objectives, theater-level decision support that does not need to know how to
control elements of a swarm)? How can resource management tools be made more
adaptable and tailorable to the needs of a specific conflict or mission? What are software
infrastructures to support faster development and integration of new plans and systems
(e.g. based upon commercial “agile” or “DevOps” principles)?
 Task Planning: How do we develop fine-scale tactics automatically? Can these fine-
scale tactics learn and adapt to the combat situation? How should tasks be assigned to
specific systems (e.g. within a swarm or constellation)? How can this tasking and
supporting information be translated into a message framework each system will
understand? How can both autonomous machines and human combat units maintain
coherent task coordination and execute missions at the edge when communications is
degraded or denied?
 Training: How will human warfighters operate with new mosaic elements without prior
training? Are there novel ways to train Artificial Intelligence (AI) synergistically with
training of the human operator to instill human context and intuition into the AI while
avoiding human bias? How can we train human operators fast and minimize operator
burden? Can new systems be developed with streamlined, more intuitive human-machine
interfaces? How can more of the mechanical tasks of operating a new system (i.e.,
“button pushing”) be automated to minimize learning requirements and enable
warfighters to focus on more cognitive functions? How can we enable humans and
machines to share tasks at the edge? What are approaches to managing the level of
autonomy? How do we develop trust within human-machine teams?
1.1.2 Mosaic Effects Web Services (EWS)
DARPA/STO has a legacy of developing advanced mission systems technologies: sensors,

seekers, and electronic warfare. Generally, these systems are thought of as providing a
component capability, or service, of an effects chain. In recent years, DARPA/STO has been
developing these systems to enable and be enabled by a system of systems. In the context of
Mosaic Warfare, these capabilities are ‘tiles’ within the mosaic, or Mosaic Effects Web Services
(EWS). For example, DARPA/STO is currently developing payloads and processing that provide
new distributed sensing and electronic warfare. DARPA/STO is seeking technologies that
expand upon this set of tools, placing an increased emphasis on novel sensors and effectors that
are consistent with the Mosaic Warfare strategy. DARPA/STO wishes to expand the sensing
emphasis to the “find and fix” portions of the kill chain, and emphasize offensive non-kinetic
effects to be employed against peer adversaries.
9
HR001120S0034
1.1.2.1 Sensing
DARPA/STO continues to seek new, innovative methods for finding difficult targets in contested
environments that could include combining existing or new sensor modalities, novel in-sensor
Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) techniques, new algorithms, and new system concepts and
processing techniques. These capabilities may include sensing modalities and signal processing
that help avoid or defeat adversary deception and countermeasures. DARPA/STO is also
interested in new approaches for the design of low-cost, adaptable sensors that leverage
commercial technologies and processes to reduce development time and cost and increase
adaptability and technology refresh rate of sensor systems.
Of specific interest to DARPA/STO are capabilities that can perform the initial finding and
cueing of potential, likely targets. Certain legacy DARPA/STO programs that are focused on the
“target and engage” portions of the kill chain assume that likely targets are cued, so U.S.
platforms can get on target quickly and deliver effects without needing to loiter to perform
searches. Unfortunately, many future conflict scenarios do not have a good means to perform
this “find” cueing function. Existing National Technical Means (NTM) are not well-suited to
supporting tactical kill chains, and legacy airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) systems are not survivable in a highly contested environment, leaving the warfighter no
ability to “find”.
DARPA/STO is interested in new ways to perform the “find” function of the effects chain and to
connect the subsequent phases of the effects chain more seamlessly. Note that the objective is
not to replace the function of all existing ISR. Instead, in the spirit of Mosaic Warfare, we will
pursue a hybrid approach that focuses new “find” capabilities on just finding the most critical
targets. Providing focused lethality to negate these systems provides a “hedge” that then allows
more conventional, less survivable capabilities to back-fill and provide capacity. DARPA/STO
is interested in this type of sensing capability across all domains, to include air, land, surface, and
undersea. New sensor design and signal processing approaches should support deploying “find”
functionality of small, low-cost, “disadvantaged” platforms, so technology that enables low size,
weight, power, and cost is highly desirable.
Finding and prosecuting targets with effects chains requires the ability to detect, track, and
maintain custody of targets across widely distributed sensors with different functions residing in
various domains. DARPA/STO is interested in automated processing technologies that can
ensure chain of custody between sensors of different sensing modalities in different domains to
increase confidence and accuracy as targets are passed between sensors to effects in cross-
domain effects chains.
1.1.2.2 Non-Kinetic Effects
DARPA/STO is seeking methods to provide warfighters a range of scalable options to win

against a peer adversary in a major conflict situation by providing a complex diversity of
dilemmas. The focus is on using non-kinetic effects for offensive purposes, such as directly
degrading or defeating an adversary capability, delaying an adversary’s advance, or creating
confusion and uncertainty to deter the adversary and drive them to deescalate. “Effects” may
10
HR001120S0034
also be applied at different levels of intensity and can include capabilities spanning the
electromagnetic spectrum (such as directed energy) that can provide scalable, mission-dependent
effects. Of particular interest are modeling tools that enable tailoring of precise non-kinetic
effects, even when target knowledge is highly uncertain.
1.1.3 Mosaic Experimentation
There is currently a strong demand signal from the Services for new ways to do experimentation,
particularly driven by the Department-wide interest in Joint Multi-Domain Battle. A major focus
of this interest is on multi-domain command and control (MDC2) experimentation. This aligns
very well with the DARPA/STO technology portfolio, as MDC2 is at the heart of Mosaic
Warfare. Furthermore, as a stand-alone technology, MDC2 capability, more than anything else,
becomes intrinsically tied to tactics. In a mission-focused model for the Department of Defense
(DoD), innovative tactics are developed iteratively with the supporting technology.
Unfortunately there are not many opportunities to conduct this type of experimentation today.
Existing experimentation infrastructure is oriented toward high-fidelity but narrowly focused
system testing, or it is very low-fidelity oriented toward training. The more capable, campaign-
level modeling and simulation (M&S) tools tend not to be used for experimentation, but rather
focus on capability analysis and requirements and program development and justification.
Furthermore, this existing infrastructure is extremely stove-piped by Service, mission area,
classification, and even industry vendor.
DARPA/STO is interested in capabilities that apply the principles of “mosaic” to

experimentation infrastructure. Building dedicated infrastructure is very expensive to build and
even more expensive to sustain. Instead of adding a new stove-pipe to do MDC2
experimentation, DARPA/STO is interested in developing new ways to compose
experimentation environments using infrastructure that already exists and then layer new
capability on top.
DARPA/STO seeks integration technology and approaches to interoperate various M&S and
experimentation environments. Such environments would provide opportunities to conduct
MDC2 experiments and deliver tools and architectures to enable rapid composition of new
experiment environments as the “mosaic” concepts evolve within the Services. Most existing
Service experimentation or M&S efforts already use a common data standard, but their models
and actual user environments are incompatible. DARPA/STO is looking for tools and techniques
to make it easier to modify and integrate models and M&S engines for greater interoperability.
Additionally, DARPA/STO seeks the integration of the following technology elements:
 Higher-fidelity human behavior: Most existing M&S systems either use crudely
scripted operator behavior or rely upon burdensome virtual simulations with human
operators playing the elements in the simulation.
 Automated, run-time advanced analytics: Most experiments today tend to involve a
large, expensive campaign based upon pre-planned test points and mission scripts,
followed afterward by an extensive analytical effort to examine recorded data and
generate conclusions.
11
HR001120S0034
 DevOps infrastructure: MDC2 technology is intrinsically interdependent with tactics.

Details of MDC2 tools ideally need to be modifiable while a MDC2 experiment is being
conducted. This type of infrastructure would also provide a direct path from tool
development to experimentation and tactics development to operations.
1.1.4 Foundational Strategic Technologies and Systems
DARPA/STO is seeking innovative ideas for systems and Mosaic Warfare architectures
incorporating disruptive technologies that offer significant potential capability improvement
across multiple DARPA/STO focus areas as described above. This could include technologies
that would enable dramatic reduction in size, weight, power, or cost of systems, technologies that
allow for adaptability and/or rapid refresh, technologies that offer the potential for significant
advances in system level performance, and approaches to demonstrating the military utility of
these systems and technologies. This can include aperture, components, hardware, firmware,
software, or power mechanisms to reduce size, weight, power, cost, enable multiple modes, and
simplify porting of signal processing waveforms and capabilities amongst multiple platforms
with varying constraints, means to manage and control modes of operation, and/or means to
collect performance information from multiple networks.
2. AWARD INFORMATION
Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will
depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.
The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the
proposals received in response to this solicitation, and to make awards without discussions with
proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined
to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced
options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select
only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of
a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right
to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.
The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it
makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not
limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section 6.2.10., “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, and the proposer fails to timely provide requested additional
information. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, grant,
cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the
required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as
Fundamental Research, and other factors.
12
HR001120S0034
Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to

consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with
Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-
management#OtherTransactions.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(f), the Government may award a follow-on production
contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this BAA if: (1) that participant in
the OT, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT, successfully completed the entire
prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the award of a
follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to
the OT.
In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award
instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms
and conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary,
if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood
of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that
are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a
requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the
program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental
Research.
2.1 FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted
to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines
fundamental research as follows:
‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the
results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific
community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development,
design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted
for proprietary or national security reasons.
As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government cannot identify whether the work
under this BAA may be considered fundamental research and may award both fundamental and
non-fundamental research.
Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research
included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the
intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine
whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award
instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental
research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This
language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
13
HR001120S0034
For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a
potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be
fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is
fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research.
In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed
efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental
research.
3. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government’s needs may submit a proposal that
shall be considered by DARPA.
3.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
3.1.1 United States Enterprises to Include:
3.1.1.1 Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses
3.1.1.2 Accredited degree granting colleges and universities
3.1.1.3 Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations
3.1.2 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government
Entities
3.1.2.1 FFRDCs
FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA
in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate
that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must
provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the
specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and
compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC
sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs
proposing to be awardees or subawardees.
3.1.2.2 Government Entities

Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions,
etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government Entities must clearly
demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written
documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant,
establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry. This
information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.
14
HR001120S0034
3.1.2.3 Authority and Eligibility

At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority
to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 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 FFRDC and
Government Entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove
eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.
3.1.3 Non-U.S. Organizations
Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants
comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws,
and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.
3.1.4 Applicants Considering Classified Submissions
For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems
processing security requirements are in place and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance
Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A),
and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to
submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found at https://www.dcsa.mil/.
3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
FAR 9.5 Requirements

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

In addition, DARPA has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from
concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and
Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer.
Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, a proposer must affirm whether
the proposer or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS,
or similar support to any DARPA office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past
award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date.
15
HR001120S0034
If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the
proposal must include:
 The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

 The prime contract number;
 Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and
 An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.
Government Procedures
In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation
plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether
it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI
mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the BAA evaluation criteria
and funding availability.
The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the
Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.
If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide
the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional
information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation
plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.
3.3 COST SHARING/MATCHING
Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable
statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where
there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed
research and development effort.
For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for
Prototype, see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.
3.4 OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
3.4.1 Collaborative Efforts

Collaborative efforts/teaming are encouraged.
4. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

4.1 ADDRESS TO REQUEST APPLICATION PACKAGE
This announcement, any attachments, and any references to external websites herein constitute
the total solicitation. If proposers cannot access the referenced material posted in the
announcement found at http://www.darpa.mil, contact the administrative contact listed herein.
16
HR001120S0034
4.2 CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION
4.2.1 Security and Proprietary Issues
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.
Prior to sending any classified submissions, performers must provide

advance notification to the BAA Coordinator via HR001120S0034@darpa.mil.
For instructions on how to provide advanced notification at an unclassified level,
refer to Section 4.2.2.
DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and
3.104), and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Restrictive notices
notwithstanding, during the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support
contractors for administrative purposes and/or to assist with technical evaluation. All DARPA
support contractors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing DARPA-
sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
Submissions will not be returned. The original of each submission 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 notification
that a proposal was not selected.
a. Proprietary Information
Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. Submissions
containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such
information clearly marked with a label such as “Proprietary”. NOTE: “Confidential” is a
classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security
Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify
proprietary business information.
b. Security Information
Classified submissions shall be transmitted in accordance with the following guidance.
Additional information on the subjects discussed in this section may be found at
https://www.dcsa.mil/.
If a submission contains Classified National Security Information as defined by Executive Order

13526, the information must be appropriately and conspicuously marked with the proposed
classification level and declassification date. Similarly, when the classification of a submission
is in question, the submission must 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:
17
HR001120S0034
“CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION PENDING. Protect as though

classified____________________________ (insert the recommended classification level,
e.g., Top Secret, Secret or Confidential)”
NOTE: Classified submissions must indicate the classification level of not only the submitted
materials, but also the classification level of the anticipated award.
Proposers submitting classified information must have, or be able to obtain prior to contract
award, cognizant security agency approved facilities, information systems, and appropriately
cleared/eligible personnel to perform at the classification level proposed. All proposer personnel
performing Information Assurance (IA)/Cybersecurity related duties on classified Information
Systems shall meet the requirements set forth in DoD Manual 8570.01-M (Information
Assurance Workforce Improvement Program).
Proposers choosing to submit classified information from other classified sources (i.e., sources
other than DARPA) must ensure (1) they have permission from an authorized individual at the
cognizant Government agency (e.g., Contracting Officer, Program Manager); (2) the proposal is
marked in accordance with the source Security Classification Guide (SCG) from which the
material is derived; and (3) the source SCG is submitted along with the proposal.
DARPA anticipates that submissions received under this BAA will be unclassified. However,
should a proposer wish to submit classified information, an unclassified email must be sent to the
BAA mailbox requesting submission instructions from the Technical Office PSO.
Security classification guidance and direction via a Security Classification Guide (SCG) and/or
DD Form 254, “DoD Contract Security Classification Specification,” will not be provided at this
time, since DARPA is soliciting ideas only. If a determination is made that the award instrument
may result in access to classified information, a SCG and/or DD Form 254 will be issued by
DARPA and attached as part of the award.
Confidential and Secret Information

Use transmission, classification, handling, and marking guidance provided by previously
issued SCGs, the DoD Information Security Manual (DoDM 5200.01, Volumes 1 - 4), and the
National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual when submitting Confidential and/or
Secret classified information.
Confidential and Secret classified information may be submitted via ONE of the two following
methods:
 Hand-carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR.

Prior to traveling, the courier shall contact the DARPA Classified Document Registry
(CDR) at 703-526-4052 to coordinate arrival and delivery.
OR
18
HR001120S0034
 Mailed via U.S. Postal Service (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: Strategic Technology Office
Reference: HR001120S0034
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
Top Secret Information

Use classification, handling, and marking guidance provided by previously issued SCGs, the
DoD Information Security Manual (DoDM 5200.01, Volumes 1 - 4), and the National
Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. Top Secret information must 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 and DARPA/STO PSR at 571-218-
4656 to coordinate arrival and delivery.
Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)

SCI must be marked, managed and transmitted in accordance with DoDM 5105.21 Volumes 1
- 3. Questions regarding the transmission of SCI may be sent to the DARPA Technical Office
PSO via the BAA mailbox or by contacting the DARPA Special Security Officer (SSO) at 703-
812-1970 and DARPA/STO PSR at 571-218-4656.
Successful proposers may be sponsored by DARPA for access to SCI. Sponsorship must be
aligned to an existing DD Form 254 where SCI has been authorized. Questions regarding SCI
sponsorship should be directed to the DARPA Personnel Security Office at 703-526-4543.
Special Access Program (SAP) Information

SAP information must be marked in accordance with DoDM 5205.07 Volume 4 and
transmitted by specifically approved methods in accordance with DoD Manual 5205.07
Volume 1, which will be provided by the Technical Office PSO or their staff.
Proposers choosing to submit SAP information from an agency other than DARPA are
required to provide the DARPA Technical Office Program Security Officer (PSO) written
19
HR001120S0034
permission from the source material’s cognizant Special Access Program Control Officer
(SAPCO) or designated representative. For clarification regarding this process, contact the
DARPA Technical Office PSO via the BAA mailbox or the DARPA SAPCO at 703-526-4102
and the DARPA/STO PSR at 571-218-4656.
Additional SAP security requirements regarding facility accreditations, information security,

personnel security, physical security, operations security, test security, classified transportation
plans, and program protection planning may be specified in the DD Form 254.
NOTE: All proposals containing Special Access Program (SAP) information must be
processed on a SAP information technology (SAP IT) system that has received an
Approval-to-Operate (ATO) from the DARPA Technology Office PSO, or other
applicable DARPA SAP IT Authorizing Official. The SAP IT system ATO will be based
upon the Risk Management Framework (RMF) process outlined in the Joint Special
Access Program Implementation Guide (JSIG), current version, (or successor document).
(Note: A SAP IT system is any SAP IT system that requires an ATO. It can range from a
single laptop/tablet up to a local and wide area networks.)
The Department of Defense mandates the use of a component’s SAP enterprise system
unless a compelling reason exists to use a non-enterprise system. The DARPA Chief
Information Officer (CIO) must approve any performer proposal to acquire, build, and
operate a non-enterprise SAP IT system during the awarded period of performance. Use
of the DARPA SAP enterprise system, SAVANNAH, does not require CIO approval.
SAP IT disposition procedures must be approved by the DARPA Senior Authorizing

Official, or SAPCO, IAW the OSD SAPCO Memorandum, “Disposition of DoD Special
Access Program Information Technology Devices”, July 27, 2017.
4.2.2 Executive Summary, Abstract, and Proposal Information
For all responses to this BAA, the responder must clearly identify the technical topic area(s) the
proposed effort seeks to address.
In order to reduce the administrative burden on proposers and the Government and in an attempt
to mitigate unnecessary costs associated with the generation of proposals that are not of interest
to DARPA/STO, described herein is the Government’s process for submittal of information for
evaluation. Any responsible proposer is encouraged to respond.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an executive summary prior to proposal abstracts or
full proposals. The recommended order of submissions is executive summary, abstract,
proposal. Please note it is not mandatory to submit an executive summary and/or abstract before
submitting a full proposal. This procedure is intended to minimize unnecessary effort in proposal
preparation and review. The time and date for submissions is specified in Section 4.4.1 below.
DARPA will acknowledge receipt of the submission and assign a control number that should be
used in all further correspondence regarding the submission.
20
HR001120S0034
Unclassified executive summaries, abstracts, and proposals sent in response to HR001120S0034

may be submitted via DARPA's BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil). Proposals may not be
submitted by fax or email; any so sent will be disregarded. Note: If an account has already been
created for the DARPA BAA Website, this account may be reused. If no account currently
exists for the DARPA BAA Website, visit the website to complete the two-step registration
process. Submitters will need to register for an Extranet account (via the form at the URL listed
above) and wait for two separate e-mails containing a username and temporary password. After
accessing the Extranet, submitters may then create an account for the DARPA BAA website (via
the "Register your Organization" link along the left side of the homepage), view submission
instructions, and upload/finalize the proposal. Proposers using the DARPA BAA Website may
encounter heavy traffic on the submission deadline date; it is highly advised that submission
process be started as early as possible.
All unclassified concepts submitted electronically through DARPA’s BAA Website must be
uploaded as zip files (.zip or .zipx extension). The final zip file should be no greater than 50 MB
in size. Only one zip file will be accepted per submission, and submissions not uploaded as zip
files will be rejected by DARPA.
Technical support for DARPA's BAA Website may be reached at BAAT_Support@darpa.mil,

and is typically available during regular business hours, (9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST Monday -
Friday).
Proposers requesting grants or cooperative agreements must submit proposals through one of the
following methods: (1) electronic upload per the instructions at
https://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply-for-grants.html; or (2) hard-copy mailed directly to
DARPA. If proposers intend to use Grants.gov as their means of submission, then they must
submit their entire proposal through Grants.gov; applications cannot be submitted in part to
Grants.gov and in part as a hard-copy. Proposers using Grants.gov do not submit hard-copy
proposals in addition to the Grants.gov electronic submission.
Submissions: Proposers must submit the three forms listed below.
Form 1: SF 424 Research and Related (R&R) Application for Federal Assistance, available on
the Grants.gov website at https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_SF424_2_0-
V2.0.pdf. This form must be completed and submitted.
To evaluate compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681
et.seq.), the Department of Defense (DoD) is collecting certain demographic and career
information to be able to assess the success rates of women who are proposed for key roles in
applications in science, technology, engineering or mathematics disciplines. In addition, the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019, Section 1286, directs the Secretary of
Defense to protect intellectual property, controlled information, key personnel, and information
about critical technologies relevant to national security and limit undue influence, including
foreign talent programs by countries that desire to exploit United States’ technology within the
DoD research, science and technology, and innovation enterprise. This requirement is necessary
21
HR001120S0034
for all research and research-related educational activities. The DoD is using the two forms
below to collect the necessary information to satisfy these requirements. Detailed instructions for
each form are available on Grants.gov.
The Research and Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) form will be used to collect the
following information for all senior/key personnel, including Project Director/Principal
Investigator and Co-Project Director/Co-Principal Investigator, whether or not the individuals'
efforts under the project are funded by the DoD:
 Degree Type and Degree Year.
 Current and Pending Support, including:
o A list of all current projects the individual is working on, in addition to any future
support the individual has applied to receive, regardless of the source.
o Title and objectives of the other research projects.
o The percentage per year to be devoted to the other projects.
o The total amount of support the individual is receiving in connection to each of
the other research projects or will receive if other proposals are awarded.
o Name and address of the agencies and/or other parties supporting the other
research projects
o Period of performance for the other research projects.
Additional senior/key persons can be added by selecting the “Next Person” button at the bottom
of the form. Note that, although applications without this information completed may pass
Grants.gov edit checks, if DARPA receives an application without the required information,
DARPA may determine that the application is incomplete and may cause your submission to be
rejected and eliminated from further review and consideration under the BAA. DARPA reserves
the right to request further details from the applicant before making a final determination on
funding the effort.
Form 2: Research and Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded), available on the
Grants.gov website at
https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_KeyPersonExpanded_2_0-V2.0.pdf. This
form must be completed and submitted.
Form 3: Research and Related Personal Data, available on the Grants.gov website at
https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_PersonalData_1_2-V1.2.pdf. Each applicant
must complete the name field of this form, however, provision of the demographic information is
voluntary. Regardless of whether the demographic fields are completed or not, this form must be
submitted with at least the applicant’s name completed.
Classified submissions and proposals requesting assistance instruments (grants or cooperative

agreements) should NOT be submitted through DARPA's BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil),
though proposers will likely still need to visit https://baa.darpa.mil to register their organization
(or verify an existing registration) to ensure the BAA office can verify and finalize their
submission.
22
HR001120S0034
4.2.3 Restrictive Markings on Proposals

All proposals should clearly indicate limitations on the disclosure of their contents. Proposers
who include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose,
or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall-
(1) Mark the title page with the following legend:
This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not
be duplicated, used, or disclosed-in whole or in part-for any purpose other than to evaluate
this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this proposer as a result of, or in
connection with, the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to
duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This
restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if
it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are
contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and
(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page
of this proposal.
Markings like "Company Confidential" or other phrases that may be confused with national
security classifications shall be avoided. See Section 6.0, for additional information.
4.2.4 Disclosure of Information and Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information Controls
The following provisions and clause apply to all solicitations and contracts; however, the
definition of “controlled technical information” clearly exempts work considered fundamental
research and therefore, even though included in the contract, will not apply if the work is
fundamental research.
DFARS 252.204-7000, “Disclosure of Information”

DFARS 252.204-7008, “Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls”
DFARS 252.204-7012, “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident
Reporting”
The full text of the above solicitation provision and contract clauses can be found at
http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa#NPRPAC.
Compliance with the above requirements includes the mandate for proposers to implement the
security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Special Publication (SP) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal
Information Systems and Organizations” (see https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171r1) that
are in effect at the time the BAA is issued.
23
HR001120S0034
For awards where the work is considered fundamental research, the contractor will not have to
implement the aforementioned requirements and safeguards. However, should the nature of the
work change during performance of the award, work not considered fundamental research will
be subject to these requirements.
4.3 FORMATTING CHARACTERISTICS
4.3.1 Executive Summary Format

All submissions must be in the following format – nonconforming submissions may be rejected
without further review. The executive summary should be clearly marked "EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY" and the total length shall not exceed one (1) page. A page is defined as being no
larger than 8.5” by 11.0”. (Accordion-style foldouts will be counted as multiple pages equivalent
to the expanded size.) Proposals must be written in English, and with 1” margins (left, right, top,
and bottom) on each page and contain no smaller than 12-point font type. The page limitation for
executive summaries includes all point of contact information, figures, tables, and charts. Do not
submit additional copies of the same executive summary for different technical topic areas. If an
executive summary applies to more than one area, simply indicate that fact.
4.3.2 Proposal Abstract Format

Proposal abstracts are encouraged in advance of proposals in order to provide potential proposers
with a rapid response to minimize unnecessary effort. Proposal abstracts should follow the
format provided below. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “PROPOSAL ABSTRACT”
and the total length should not exceed 6 pages, excluding cover page and official transmittal
letter. All pages shall be printed on 8.5” by 11.0” paper and contain no smaller than 12-point
font type. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables and charts. The page limitation for
proposal abstracts includes all figures, tables, and charts. No formal transmittal letter is required.
All proposal abstracts must be written in English.
4.3.2.1. Cover sheet to include:

1. BAA number
2. Technical area (see Sec 1.1)
3. Lead Organization Submitting proposal
4. Type of organization, selected among the following categories: "LARGE
BUSINESS," "SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS," "OTHER SMALL
BUSINESS," "HBCU," "MI," "OTHER EDUCATIONAL,” or "OTHER
NONPROFIT"
5. Contractor’s reference number (if any)
6. Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each
7. Abstract title
8. Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address,
city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available)
9. Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if
available)
24
HR001120S0034
10. Estimated funds requested from DARPA for each phase proposed and the total
estimated proposed cost; and the amount of cost share (if any)
11. Date abstract was prepared.
Abstracts may be structured as you wish. Here is one example of an abstract structure. You may
wish to only accept the technical portions and eliminate the teaming/org chart, funding
information, and discussion of other research off. The proposer may choose any combination of
suggested portions listed below; however, the total length must not exceed 6 pages.
4.3.2.2 Executive Summary:

Includes a title and an abstract that provides a concise summary of work to be performed and
basic approaches to be used.
4.3.2.3 Summary of Innovative Claims for the Proposed Research:

Succinctly describe the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed approach relative to the current
state-of-art and alternative approaches.
4.3.2.4 Summary of Technical Approach:

The technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishments of
technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production should be
summarized.
4.3.2.5 Organization and Teaming Chart:

A clearly defined organization chart for the program team that includes, as applicable:
1. programmatic relationship of team members;
2. unique capabilities of team members;
3. task responsibilities of team members;
4. teaming strategy among the team members;
5. key personnel along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during each
year.
4.3.2.6 Summary of Deliverables and Approach to Intellectual Property:

Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to accomplish
technology transition and commercialization. Include in this section all proprietary claims to
results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of
the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated.
This section should list all technical data, computer software, or computer software
documentation to be provided with other than unlimited rights in accordance with DFARS
Clause 252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR
DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS (JUNE 1995).
4.3.2.7 Summary of Estimated Cost, Schedule, and Milestones:

Summarize, in table form, estimated cost, schedule, and milestones for the proposed research.
4.3.2.8 Discussion of Other Research:
Compare the proposed effort with other ongoing research in this area. Describe the advantages
and disadvantages of the proposed effort in comparison with other relevant research.
25
HR001120S0034
4.3.3 Proposal Format

All proposals must be in the format given below. Nonconforming proposals may be rejected
without review. 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. Smaller font may be used for figures, tables
and charts. The page limitation for proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. Volume I,
Technical and Management Approach Proposal, may include an attached bibliography of
relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished) which document the
technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. These papers or research notes
will not be formally reviewed against the evaluation criteria, but should allow technical
understanding of the claims made. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers may be
included with the submission. The bibliography and attached papers are not included in the page
counts given below. The submission of other supporting materials along with the proposals is
strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Maximum page lengths for each
section are shown in braces { } below. All proposals must be written in English.
4.3.3.1 Volume I, Technical and Management Approach Proposal
Section I. Administrative {No more than 2 pages}

A. Cover sheet to include:
(1) BAA number
(2) Technical area
(3) Lead Organization Submitting proposal
(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE
BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS”,
“HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”
(5) Proposer’s reference number (if any)
(6) Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each
(7) Proposal title
(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address,
city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available)
(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available)
(10) Date proposal was submitted
(11) Total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any)
B. Official transmittal letter. Proposers may also use the transmittal letter to address
Organizational Conflicts of Interest as described in Section 3.2, if necessary.
Section II. Summary of Proposal {No more than 14 pages}

A. Innovative claims for the proposed research. 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-of-art alternate approaches.
B. Deliverables associated with the proposed research and the plans and capability to
accomplish technology transition and commercialization. Include in this section all
proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting
26
HR001120S0034
and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are not
proprietary claims, this should be stated.
C. Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for accomplishment of
technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production. (In the proposal,
this section should be supplemented by a more detailed plan in Section III.)
D. General discussion of other research in this area.
E. 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.
F. A three slide summary of the proposal in PowerPoint that quickly and succinctly indicates
the concept overview, key innovations, expected impact, and other unique aspects of the
proposal. The format for the summary slides is included as APPENDIX 1 to this BAA and
does not count against the page limit.
Section III. Detailed Proposal Information {No more than 30 pages}

A. Statement of Work (SOW) - In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be
performed, their durations, and dependencies among them. The page count for the SOW will
be dependent on the amount of the effort. 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.
Reporting Deliverables
Item Date/Frequency
(LIST) (LIST)
Tech Deliverables
Item Deliverable Date Deliverable Location
(LIST) (LIST) (LIST)
IP Claims (LIST)
Data Restrictions (LIST)
Note: It is recommended that the SOW be developed so that each Phase of the program is
separately defined.
27
HR001120S0034
Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW.
B. Description of the results, products, transferable technology, and expected technology

transfer path enhancing that of Section II. B. This should also address mitigation of life-
cycle and sustainment risks associated with transitioning intellectual property for U.S.
military applications, if applicable. See also Section 8.1 “Intellectual Property.”
C. Detailed technical rationale enhancing that of Section II.
D. Detailed technical approach enhancing and completing that of Section II.
E. Comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed effort.
F. Discussion of proposer’s previous accomplishments and work in closely related research
areas.
G. Description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort. This section
should address how safeguarding of materials will be handled at each facility to include
classified materials when applicable.
H. Detail support enhancing that of Section II, including formal teaming agreements which
are required to execute this program.
I. Cost schedules and measurable milestones 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. These milestones should enable and
support a decision for the next part of the effort. Additional interim non-critical
management milestones are also highly encouraged at regular intervals. 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 more than 20 pages}

A brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished)
which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is based. These papers or research
notes will not be formally reviewed against the evaluation criteria, but should allow technical
understanding of the claims made. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be
included in the submission.
4.3.3.2 Volume II, Cost Proposal – {No Page Limit}

All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:
Cover sheet to include:
(1) BAA number;
(2) Technical area;
(3) Lead Organization Submitting proposal;
28
HR001120S0034
(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE

BUSINESS”, “SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS”,
“HBCU”, “MI”, “OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”;
(5) Proposer’s reference number (if any);
(6) Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each;
(7) Proposal title;
(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street address,
city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail (if available);
(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), and electronic mail (if
available);
(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), or other
transaction;
(11) Place(s) and period(s) of performance;
(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s) (if any);
(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
(18) Cage Code
(19) Subcontractor Information
(20) Proposal validity period
Proposers without an accounting system considered adequate for determining accurate costs
must complete an SF 1408 if a cost type contract is to be negotiated. To facilitate this process,
proposers should complete the SF 1408 found at
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778 and submit the completed form with the
proposal. To complete the form, check the boxes on the second page, then provide a narrative
explanation of your accounting system to supplement the checklist on page one. For more
information, please see
http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_system_adequacy_checklist.html.
The Government strongly encourages that tables included in the cost proposal also be provided
in an editable (e.g., MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact to allow traceability of the
cost proposal numbers across the prime and subcontractors. This includes the calculations and
adjustments that are utilized to generate the Summary Costs from the source labor hours, labor
costs, material costs, etc. input data. The Government prefers receiving cost data as Excel files;
however, this is not a requirement. If the PDF submission differs from the Excel submission, the
PDF will take precedence. Each copy must be clearly labeled with the DARPA BAA number,
proposer organization, and proposal title (short title recommended).
29
HR001120S0034
The Government also strongly encourages that the proposer provide a detailed cost breakdown to
include:
(1) total program cost broken down by major cost items to include:
i. direct labor, including individual labor categories or persons, with associated labor
hours and numbered direct labor rates
ii. If consultants are to used, proposer must provide consultant agreement or other
document which verifies the proposed loaded daily/hourly rate
iii. Indirect costs including Fringe Benefits, Overhead, General and Administrative
Expense, Cost of Money, etc. (Must show base amount and rate)
iv. Travel – Number of trips, number of days per trip, departure and arrival destinations,
number of people, etc.
v. Other Direct Costs – Should be itemized with costs or estimated costs. Backup
documentation will be submitted to support proposed costs. An explanation of any
estimating factors, including their derivation and application, must be provided.
Please include a brief description of the proposers’ procurement method to be used
(2) major program tasks by fiscal year
(3) an itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases, to include: a cost proposal as
detailed as the Proposer’s cost proposal
(4) an itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined in FAR Part 2.101 –
Documentation supporting the reasonableness of the proposed equipment costs(vendor
quotes, past purchase orders/purchase history, detailed engineering estimates, etc.) shall be
provided, including a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested resources
from its own funding for prime and all sub-awardees. If the effort is classified SAP and the
offeror proposes use of a SAP IT system other than the current DARPA approved SAP IT
systems solution, and DARPA approves in writing use of a SAP IT system that is unique or
different from the current DARPA approved SAP IT systems solution, then: 1) successful
offerors are required to track and provide all SAP IT costs associated with such unique SAP
IT system solution, and 2) any such costs, to include costs for associated cybersecurity
manpower, shall be reported at least annually to the DARPA Program Manager by Oct 1st of
each year for inclusion in the DARPA Annual SAP report. Those costs should also include
costs associated with the SAP IT Destruction, disposition, and sanitization processes required
in the OSD SAPCO Memorandum, “Disposition of DoD Special Access Program
Information Technology Devices”, July 27, 2017. NOTE: If the proposed SAP IT system
for use is the DARPA approved SAP IT systems solution only, then no separate tracking or
reporting of costs by the contractor for SAP IT is required.
(5) a summary of projected funding requirements by month
(6) the source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing. 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
(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.)
The proposer should include supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to
substantiate the summary cost estimates and should include a description of the method used to
estimate costs and supporting documentation. Per FAR 15.403-4, certified cost or pricing data
30
HR001120S0034
shall be required shall be required if the proposer is seeking a procurement contract award per
the referenced threshold, unless the proposer requests and is granted an exception from the
requirement to submit cost or pricing data. Certified cost or pricing data” are not required if the
proposer proposes an award instrument other than a procurement contract (e.g., other
transaction.)
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. NOTE: for IT and
equipment purchases, include a letter stating why the proposer cannot provide the requested
resources from its own funding.
All proprietary subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that
required of the prime and which cannot be uploaded with the proposed prime contractor’s
proposal), 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 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 is required of the prime contractor.
NOTE: PROPOSERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT PROPOSALS MAY BE REJECTED IF

SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED.
All proposers requesting an Other Transaction for Prototypes (OT) agreement must include a
detailed list of milestones. Each milestone must include the following: milestone description,
completion criteria, due date, and payment/funding schedule (to include, if cost share is
proposed, contractor and Government share amounts). It is noted that, at a minimum, 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. Do not include proprietary data.
4.4 SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES
4.4.1 Executive Summary, Abstract, and Proposal Submission Deadline
The executive summary, abstract, and/or proposal must be submitted via the DARPA BAA
website OR received via hard copy on or before 4:00 p.m., EST, October, 31, 2021.
Submissions received after this time and date may not be reviewed.
4.5 FUNDING RESTRICTIONS
Not applicable.
4.6 OTHER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Not applicable.
31
HR001120S0034
5. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance:
5.1.1 Overall Scientific and Technical Merit; 5.1.2 Potential Contribution and Relevance to the
DARPA Mission; and 5.1.3 Cost Realism.
5.1.1 Overall Scientific and Technical Merit
The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete.
Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical
sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final product that achieves the
goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal clearly identifies major technical risks
and clearly defines feasible planned mitigation strategies and efforts to address those risks. The
proposal clearly explains the technical approach(es) that will be employed and provides ample
justification as to why the approach(es) is feasible. The Government will also consider the
structure, clarity, and responsiveness to the statement of work; the quality of proposed
deliverables; and the linkage of the statement of work, technical approach(es), risk mitigation
plans, costs, and deliverables of the prime contractor and all subcontractors through a logical,
well structured, and traceable technical plan.
5.1.2 Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission
The potential contributions of the proposed effort are relevant to the national technology base.
Specifically, DARPA’s mission is to make pivotal early technology investments that create or
prevent strategic surprise for U.S. National Security.
In addition, the evaluation will take into consideration the extent to which the proposed technical
deliverables and intellectual property (IP) rights will potentially impact the Government’s ability
to transition technology.
5.1.3 Cost Realism
The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately
reflect the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs are consistent
with the proposer's Statement of Work and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and
level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach. The costs for
the prime proposer and proposed subawardees are substantiated by the details provided in the
proposal (e.g., the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of
materials, equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for
the estimates).
32
HR001120S0034
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.
5.2 REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
DARPA will conduct a scientific/technical review of each conforming proposal. Conforming

proposals comply with all requirements detailed in this BAA; proposals that fail to do so may be
deemed non-conforming and may be removed from consideration. 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.
DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and
3.104), and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Restrictive notices
notwithstanding, during the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support
contractors for administrative purposes and/or to assist with technical evaluation. All DARPA
support contractors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing DARPA-
sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
Per 41 U.S.C. 2313, as implemented by FAR 9.103 and 2 CFR § 200.205, prior to making an
award above the simplified acquisition threshold, DARPA is required to review and consider any
information available through the designated integrity and performance system (currently
FAPIIS). Awardees have the opportunity to comment on any information about themselves
entered in the database, and DARPA will consider any comments, along with other information
in FAPIIS or other systems prior to making an award.
6. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

6.1 SELECTION NOTICES AND NOTIFICATIONS
6.1.1 Executive Summaries
DARPA will respond to executive summaries with a letter of “Interest” or “No Interest” in the
topic, based on relevance to the DARPA/STO mission and interest in the technology topic. A
letter of interest will encourage the submission of an abstract. A letter of no interest will
discourage the submission of an abstract. Regardless of DARPA’s response to an executive
summary, proposers may submit an abstract or full proposal.
33
HR001120S0034
6.1.2 Abstracts
DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the
idea. If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide
feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s
response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all
conforming full proposals using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any
comments resulting from the review of an abstract.
6.1.3 Proposals
As soon as the evaluation of a proposal is complete, the proposers will be notified that 1) the
proposal has been selected for funding pending contract negotiations, or 2) the proposal has not
been selected. These official notifications will be sent via email to the Technical POC identified
on the proposal coversheet.
6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS
6.2.1 Meeting and Travel Requirements
Proposers shall include within the content of their proposal details and costs of any travel or
meetings they deem to be necessary throughout the course of the effort, to include periodic status
reviews by the government.
6.2.2 FAR and DFARS Clauses
Solicitation clauses in the FAR and DFARS relevant to procurement contracts and FAR and
DFARS clauses that may be included in any resultant procurement contracts are incorporated
herein and can be found at www. darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
6.2.3 Human Subjects Research (HSR)/Animal Use
Proposers that anticipate involving human subjects or animals in the proposed research must
comply with the approval procedures detailed at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-
baa, to include providing the information specified therein as required for proposal submission.
6.2.4 Grant Abstract
Per Section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), all
grant awards must be posted on a public website in a searchable format. To comply with this
requirement, proposers requesting grant awards must submit a maximum one (1) page abstract
that may be publicly posted and explains the program or project to the public. The proposer
should sign the bottom of the abstract confirming the information in the abstract is approved for
public release. Proposers are advised to provide both a signed PDF copy, as well as an editable
(e.g., Microsoft word) copy. Abstracts contained in grant proposals that are not selected for
award will not be publicly posted.
34
HR001120S0034
6.2.5 Subcontracting
Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 637(d)) and FAR 19.702(a)(1),
each proposer who submits a contract proposal and includes subcontractors might be required to
submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal. The plan format is outlined in FAR 19.704.
6.2.6 Electronic and Information Technology

All electronic and information technology acquired or created through this BAA must satisfy the
accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C § 794d)/FAR 39.2.
6.2.7 System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements
All proposers must be registered in SAM unless exempt per FAR 4.1102. FAR 52.204-7,
“System for Award Management” and FAR 52.204-13, “System for Award Management
Maintenance” are incorporated into this BAA. See http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-
us/additional-baa for further information.
International entities can register in SAM by following the instructions in this link:
https://www.fsd.gov/fsd-
gov/answer.do?sysparm_kbid=dbf8053adb119344d71272131f961946&sysparm_search=KB001
3221.
6.2.8 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems

Further information on Controlled Unclassified Information on Non-DoD Information Systems is
incorporated herein can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
6.2.9 Terms and Conditions

For terms and conditions specific to grants and/or cooperative agreements, see the DoD General
Research Terms and Conditions (latest version) at http://www.onr.navy.mil/Contracts-
Grants/submit-proposal/grants-proposal/grants-terms-conditions and the supplemental DARPA-
specific terms and conditions at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-
management#GrantsCooperativeAgreements.
6.2.10 Representations and Certifications

In accordance with FAR 4.1102 and 4.1201, proposers requesting a procurement contract must
complete electronic annual representations and certifications at https://www.sam.gov/. In
addition, resultant procurement contracts will require supplementary DARPA-specific
representations and certifications. See http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa for
further information.
6.3 REPORTING
The number and types of reports will be specified in the award document, but will include as a
minimum monthly financial 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. Reports and briefing material will also be required as appropriate to document progress
in accomplishing program metrics. A Final Report that summarizes the project and tasks will be
35
HR001120S0034
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.
6.4 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
6.4.1 Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

Performers will be required to submit invoices for payment directly to https://wawf.eb.mil,
unless an exception applies. Performers must register in WAWF prior to any award under this
BAA.
6.4.2 i-EDISON
The award document for each proposal selected for funding will contain a mandatory
requirement for patent reports and notifications to be submitted electronically through i-Edison
(https://public.era.nih.gov/iedison).
7. AGENCY CONTACTS
Administrative, technical or contractual questions should be sent via e-mail to

HR001120S0034@darpa.mil. All requests must include the name, email address, and phone
number of a point of contact.
Points of Contact
The BAA Coordinator for this effort may be reached at:
HR001120S0034@darpa.mil
DARPA/STO
ATTN: HR001120S0034
For information concerning agency level protests see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-

us/additional-baa#NPRPAC.
8. OTHER INFORMATION
8.1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
All proposers must provide a good faith representation that the proposer either owns or possesses
the appropriate licensing rights to all intellectual property that will be utilized under the proposed
effort.
36
HR001120S0034
8.1.1 Procurement Contract
Proposers responding to this BAA requesting procurement contracts will need to complete the
certifications at DFARS 252.227-7017. See http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa
for further information. If no restrictions are intended, the proposer should state “none.” The
table below captures the requested information:
Technical Data Summary of Basis for Asserted Rights Name of Person

Computer Intended Use in Assertion Category Asserting
Software To be the Conduct of Restrictions
Furnished With the Research
Restrictions
(LIST) (NARRATIVE) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)
8.1.2 Nonprocurement Contract
Proposers responding to this BAA requesting a Grant, Cooperative Agreement, Technology

Investment Agreement, or Other Transaction for Prototypes shall follow the applicable rules and
regulations governing these various award instruments, but, in all cases, should appropriately
identify any potential restrictions on the Government’s use of any Intellectual Property
contemplated under the award instrument in question. This includes both Noncommercial Items
and Commercial Items. Proposers are encouraged use a format similar to that described in
Paragraph a. above. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state “NONE.”
37
HR001120S0034
9. APPENDIX 1: PROPOSAL SLIDE SUMMARY
Organization Name Concept

Describe How It Works / Innovative Claims
Organization Name Contract/Proposal Specifics
 Intellectual Property
 Data rights summary
 Deliverables
38
HR001120S0034
Organization Name Schedule/Cost
Base # Months $##M
Option 1 ## Months $##M
Option 2 ## Months $##M
Program Total ## Months $##M
• Proposed award type [i.e. Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost Plus Award Fee
(CPAF), Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), Fixed Firm Price (FFP), Grant, etc.]
39
HR001120S0034
10. APPENDIX 2: VOLUME 1 COVER SHEET TEMPLATE
Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Cover Sheet
(1) BAA Number: ___________________

(2) Technical Area: ___________________
(3) Lead Organization Submitting Proposal: ____________________________________
(4) Type of Organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE BUSINESS”,
“SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS, “HBCU”, “MI”,
“OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”
(5) Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each:
Company 1 (Other Small Business)
Company 2 (Large Business)
University (Other Educational)
(6) Contractor’s reference number (if any):________________________________________
(7) Proposal Title: ___________________________________________________________

Proposal directed to the attention of (if applicable):_______________________________
(8) Technical point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name first name
Street Address
Street Address 2
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone, Fax (if available)
Electronic mail (if available)
(9) Administrative point of contact to include:

Salutation, last name first name
Street Address
Street Address 2
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone, Fax (if available)
Electronic mail (if available)
(10) Date proposal submitted: ___________________
(11) Total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any): ____________
40
HR001120S0034
11. APPENDIX 3: VOLUME 2 COVER SHEET, CHECKLIST AND SAMPLE

TEMPLATES
Volume II, Cost Proposal

Cover Sheet
(1) BAA Number: ___________________

(2) Technical Area: ___________________
(3) Lead Organization Submitting Proposal: ____________________________________
(4) Type of Organization, selected among the following categories: “LARGE BUSINESS”,
“SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS”, “OTHER SMALL BUSINESS, “HBCU”, “MI”,
“OTHER EDUCATIONAL”, OR “OTHER NONPROFIT”
(5) Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each:
Company 1 (Other Small Business)
University (Other Educational)
(6) Contractor’s reference number (if any):________________________________________
(7) Proposal Title: ___________________________________________________________

Proposal directed to the attention of (if applicable):_______________________________
(8) Technical point of contact to include: (9) Administrative point of contact to include:
Salutation, last name first name Salutation, last name first name
Street Address Street Address
Street Address 2 Street Address 2
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code
Telephone, Fax (if available) Telephone, Fax (if available)
Electronic mail (if available) Electronic mail (if available)
(10) Award Instrument Requested: cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), cost-contract – no fee, cost

sharing contract – no fee, or other type of procurement contract (specify), or other transaction
(11) Place and period of performance: ___________________________________
(12) Total proposed cost separated by basic award and option(s) (if any): ___________________
(13) Proposer’s Cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract
Audit Agency (DCAA) Information:
DCMA Administration Office (if known): DCAA Audit Office (if known):
Salutation, last name first name Salutation, last name first name
Street Address Street Address
41
HR001120S0034
Street Address 2 Street Address 2

City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code
Telephone, Fax (if available) Telephone, Fax (if available)
(14) Any Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, other such approved rate information, or such other
documentation that may assist in expediting negotiations (if available).
(15) Date proposal submitted: ___________________
(16) DUNS number: __________________
(17) TIN (Tax Information Number):___________________
(18) CAGE Code: ___________________
(19) Subcontractor Information: ___________________
(20) Proposal validity period: ___________________
42
HR001120S0034
Volume II, Cost Proposal

Checklist and Sample Templates
The following checklist and sample templates are provided to assist the proposer in
developing a complete and responsive cost volume. Full instructions appear in Section
4.3.2.2 beginning on Page 22. This worksheet must be included with the coversheet of the
Cost Proposal.
1. Are all items from Section 4.3.2.2 (Volume II, Cost Proposal) of HR001120S0034 included on your
Cost Proposal cover sheet?
○ YES ○ NO Appears on Page(s) [Type text]
If reply is “No”, please explain:
2. Does your Cost Proposal include (1) a summary cost buildup by Phase, (2) a summary cost buildup
by Year, and (3) a detailed cost buildup of for each Phase that breaks out each task and shows the cost
per month?
3. Does your cost proposal (detailed cost buildup #3 above in item 2) show a breakdown of the major
cost items listed below:
Direct Labor (Labor Categories, Hours, Rates)
Indirect Costs/Rates (i.e., overhead charges, fringe benefits, G&A)

Materials and/or Equipment

Subcontracts/Consultants
Other Direct Costs

Travel
4. Have you provided documentation for proposed costs related to travel, to include purpose of trips,
departure and arrival destinations and sample airfare?
43
HR001120S0034
5. Does your cost proposal include a complete itemized list of all material and equipment items to be
purchased (a priced bill-of-materials (BOM))?
6. Does your cost proposal include vendor quotes or written engineering estimates (basis of estimate) for
all material and equipment with a unit price exceeding $5000?
7. Does your cost proposal include a clear justification for the cost of labor (written labor basis-of-
estimate (BOE)) providing rationale for the labor categories and hours proposed for each task?
8. Do you have subcontractors/consultants? If YES, continue to question 9. If NO, skip to question 13.
9. Does your cost proposal include copies of all subcontractor/consultant technical (to include Statement
of Work) and cost proposals?
10. Do all subcontract proposals include the required summary buildup, detailed cost buildup, and
supporting documentation (SOW, Bill-of-Materials, Basis-of-Estimate, Vendor Quotes, etc.)?
11. Does your cost proposal include copies of consultant agreements, if available?
12. If requesting a FAR-based contract, does your cost proposal include a tech/cost analysis for all
proposed subcontractors?
44
HR001120S0034
13. Have all team members (prime and subcontractors) who are considered a Federally Funded
Research & Development Center (FFRDC), included documentation that clearly demonstrates work
is not otherwise available from the private sector AND provided a letter on letterhead from the
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.
14. Does your proposal include a response regarding Organizational Conflicts of Interest?
15. Does your proposal include a completed Data Rights Assertions table/certification?
45
HR001120S0034
SAMPLE – SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET (One per Phase)
SAMPLE: COST ELEMENT SUMMARY
Phase 1 Phase 2 Option

TOTAL
PROPOSED
COST ELEMENT BASE RATE AMOUNT BASE RATE AMOUNT AMOUNT
DIRECT LABOR Hours Hours
(List each direct labor category
separately) $ $ $ $
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $ $
FRINGE BENEFITS $ % $ $ % $
TOTAL LABOR OVERHEAD $ % $ $ % $
SUBCONTRACTOR(S),
CONSULTANT(S) (List Each
Separately) $ $
MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT $ $
MATERIAL OVERHEAD $ % $ $ % $
TRAVEL $ $
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) $ $
General and Administrative (G&A) $ % $ $ % $
Independent Research and
Development (IR&D)/Bid and
Proposal (B&P) $ % $ $ % $
SUBTOTAL COSTS $ $
COST OF MONEY (See DD Form
1861) $ $
TOTAL COST $ $
PROFIT/FEE $ % $ $ % $
TOTAL PRICE/COST $ $
GOVERNMENT SHARE $ $
RECIPIENT SHARE (if
applicable) $ $
46
HR001120S0034
SAMPLE: SUBCONTRACTORS & CONSULTANTS PRICE SUMMARY
A B C D E F
Difference
Subcontractor SOW Subcontractor of Cost Proposed (Column D -
or Consultant Tasks to be Type of Award Consultant by Prime for the Column E)
Name performed* Quoted Price Subcontractor or IF
Consultant APPLICABLE
TOTALS
* Identify Statement of Work, Milestone or Work Breakdown Structure paragraph or provide a narrative
explanation as an addendum to this Table that describes the effort to be performed.
47

Broad Agency Announcement Strategic Technologies Strategic Technology Office HR001120S0034 Amendment 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broad Agency Announcement Strategic Technologies Strategic Technology Office HR001120S0034 Amendment 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broad Agency Announcement Strategic Technologies Strategic Technology Office HR001120S0034 Amendment 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broad Agency Announcement

Summary of Amendment 1 Changes:

1. Update the BAA closing date/deadline to submit an executive summary, abstract,

1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION .................................................................5

5.2 REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS.................................................................32

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

 Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),

 Anticipated individual awards - Multiple awards are anticipated.

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

1. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal

1.1.1 Mosaic Technologies

1.1.1.1 Planning and Composition

 Communications: How do we provide assured high-capacity mobile communication

 Resource Management: How should assets be assigned to a particular effects chain at a

1.1.2 Mosaic Effects Web Services (EWS)

DARPA/STO has a legacy of developing advanced mission systems technologies: sensors,

1.1.2.2 Non-Kinetic Effects

DARPA/STO is seeking methods to provide warfighters a range of scalable options to win

1.1.3 Mosaic Experimentation

DARPA/STO is interested in capabilities that apply the principles of “mosaic” to

 DevOps infrastructure: MDC2 technology is intrinsically interdependent with tactics.

1.1.4 Foundational Strategic Technologies and Systems

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to

3.1 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

3.1.1 United States Enterprises to Include:

3.1.1.1 Industrial/commercial concerns including small businesses

3.1.1.2 Accredited degree granting colleges and universities

3.1.1.3 Non-profit and not-for-profit organizations

3.1.2.2 Government Entities

3.1.2.3 Authority and Eligibility

3.1.3 Non-U.S. Organizations

3.1.4 Applicants Considering Classified Submissions

3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

FAR 9.5 Requirements

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy

 The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

3.3 COST SHARING/MATCHING

3.4 OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

3.4.1 Collaborative Efforts

4. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

4.2 CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION

4.2.1 Security and Proprietary Issues

Prior to sending any classified submissions, performers must provide

If a submission contains Classified National Security Information as defined by Executive Order

“CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION PENDING. Protect as though

Confidential and Secret Information

 Hand-carried by an appropriately cleared and authorized courier to the DARPA CDR.

The inner envelope shall be addressed to:

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Top Secret Information

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)

Special Access Program (SAP) Information

Additional SAP security requirements regarding facility accreditations, information security,

SAP IT disposition procedures must be approved by the DARPA Senior Authorizing

4.2.2 Executive Summary, Abstract, and Proposal Information

Unclassified executive summaries, abstracts, and proposals sent in response to HR001120S0034