IARPA
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT
IARPA-BAA-15-12
RAPID ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS EMERGING NANOELECTRONICS (RAVEN)
Office of Safe and Secure Operations
IARPA-BAA-15-12
Release Date: January 12, 2016
Page 1
IARPA
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT: IARPA-BAA-15-12
RAPID ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS EMERGING NANOELECTRONICS (RAVEN)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW INFORMATION .......................................................................................................4
FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT ...........................................................................................5
SECTION 1: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION ......................................................5
1.A. Program Overview ............................................................................................................5
1.A.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................5
1.A.2. RAVEN Research Challenges ..........................................................................................6
1.A.2.1. Destructive Image Acquisition ..................................................................................6
1.A.2.2. Nondestructive Image Acquisition ............................................................................6
1.A.3. Teaming ............................................................................................................................7
1.B. Program Structure, Milestones, and Metrics.....................................................................7
1.C. Program Schedule and Deliverables .................................................................................7
1.D. Program Waypoints ........................................................................................................10
1.E. Assistance from Other Government Agencies (OGAs), Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) .......12
SECTION 2: AWARD INFORMATION ..................................................................................13
SECTION 3: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION .........................................................................14
3.A. Eligible Applicants..........................................................................................................14
3.A.1. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) .....................................................................14
3.B. US Academic Institutions ...............................................................................................15
3.C. Other Eligibility Criteria .................................................................................................16
3.C.1. Collaboration Efforts ......................................................................................................16
SECTION 4: PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION .........................................16
4.A. Content and Form of Application Submission................................................................16
4.A.1. Proposal Information ......................................................................................................16
4.A.2. Proposal Format ..............................................................................................................17
4.A.3. Proposal Classification....................................................................................................17
4.B. Proposal Content Specifics .............................................................................................17
Page 2
4.B.1. Volume 1, Technical and Management Proposal {Limit of 35 pages} ..........................17
4.B.1.1. Section 1: Cover Sheet & Transmittal Letter ..........................................................18
4.B.1.2. Section 2: Summary of Proposal {Limit of 10 pages} ...........................................18
4.B.1.3. Section 3: Detailed Proposal Information ...............................................................19
4.B.1.4. Section 4: Attachments ...........................................................................................24
4.B.2. Volume 2: Cost Proposal {No Page Limit} ...................................................................24
4.C. Submission Details..........................................................................................................26
4.C.1. Due Dates ........................................................................................................................26
4.C.2. Proposal Delivery............................................................................................................26
4.D. Funding Restrictions .......................................................................................................26
SECTION 5: PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION ............................................................28
5.A. Technical and Programmatic Evaluation Criteria ...........................................................28
5.A.1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit ...........................................................................28
5.A.2. Effectiveness of Proposed Work Plan.............................................................................28
5.A.3. Contribution and Relevance to the IARPA Mission and Program Goal ........................29
5.A.4. Relevant Experience and Expertise ................................................................................29
5.A.5. Resource Realism............................................................................................................29
5.B. Evaluation and Selection Process ...................................................................................29
5.C. Negotiation and Contract Award ....................................................................................30
5.D Proposal Retention ..........................................................................................................30
SECTION 6: AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION ..............................................30
6.A. Award Notices ................................................................................................................30
6.B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.........................................................30
6.B.1. Proprietary Data ..............................................................................................................30
6.B.2. Intellectual Property ........................................................................................................31
6.B.2.A. Noncommercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) ...........................31
6.B.2.B. Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) .................................31
6.B.2.C. All Offerors – Patents ..............................................................................................32
6.B.2.D. All Offerors – Intellectual Property Representations...............................................32
6.B.3. Meeting and Travel Requirements ..................................................................................32
6.B.3.A. Workshops ...............................................................................................................32
6.B.3.B. Site Visits .................................................................................................................33
6.B.4. Human Use......................................................................................................................33
6.B.5. Publication Approval ......................................................................................................33
Page 3
6.B.6. Export Control ................................................................................................................34
6.B.7. Subcontracting ................................................................................................................34
6.B.8. Reporting.........................................................................................................................35
6.B.9. System for Award Management (SAM) .........................................................................35
6.B.10. Representations and Certifications ..........................................................................35
6.B.11. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) ............................................................................35
6.B.12. Lawful Use and Privacy Protection Measures .........................................................36
SECTION 7: AGENCY CONTACTS .......................................................................................36
APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................39
APPENDIX C ..............................................................................................................................41
APPENDIX D ..............................................................................................................................43
APPENDIX E ..............................................................................................................................45
APPENDIX F ..............................................................................................................................48
APPENDIX G ..............................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX H ..............................................................................................................................53
APPENDIX I ..............................................................................................................................55
Page 4
OVERVIEW INFORMATION This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) and sets forth research areas of interest in the area of microelectronic circuit analysis tools. Awards based on responses to this BAA are considered to be the result of full and open competition.
• Federal Agency Name – Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), Office of Safe and Secure Operations (S&SO)
• Funding Opportunity Title – Rapid Analysis of Various Emerging Nanoelectronics (RAVEN)
• Announcement Type – Initial • Funding Opportunity Number – IARPA-BAA-15-12 • Dates
o Posting Date: January 12, 2016 o Proposal Due Date for Initial Round of Selections: 5:00 PM Eastern Time, February
29, 2016 o BAA Closing Date: January 11, 2017
• Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated. • Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contracts are anticipated. • Agency contact information
IARPA, Office of Safe and Secure Operations ATTN: IARPA-BAA-15-12 Office of the Director of National Intelligence Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity Washington, DC 20511 Electronic mail: [email protected]
• Program Manager ‒ Dr. Carl E. McCants, Office of Safe and Secure Operations • Program website – http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/raven • BAA Summary – The RAVEN program seeks to develop a prototype analysis tool for
acquiring the images and reconstructing all layers (up to 13 metal layers) from a 10 nm integrated circuit chip within an analysis area of 1 cm2. Program goals include: a) minimum 10 nm lateral and vertical resolution; b) Nondestructive image acquisition using a single test sample, or destructive image acquisition using at most 5 test samples; c) twenty-five (25) days total to acquire, compile, and reconstruct the images from the sample(s); and d) real-time checking during the acquisition process to eliminate the need for re-scans.
• Questions – IARPA will accept questions about the BAA until 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, February 16, 2016. Questions about administrative, technical, or contractual issues must be submitted to the BAA email address at [email protected]. If email is not available, fax questions to 301-851-7672, Attention: IARPA-BAA-15-12. All requests must include the name, e-mail address (if available), and phone number of a point of contact for the requested information. A consolidated Question and Answer response will be posted every few days on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website (http://www.fbo.gov) and linked from the IARPA website, http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/raven; no answers will go directly to the submitter. Do not send questions with proprietary content.
Page 5
FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT SECTION 1: FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) often selects its research efforts through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process. The use of a BAA solicitation allows a wide range of innovative ideas and concepts. The BAA will appear first on the FedBizOpps website, http://www.fbo.gov/, and then be linked to the IARPA website at http://www.iarpa.gov/. The following information is for those wishing to respond to this Program BAA. IARPA is seeking innovative solutions for the Rapid Analysis of Various Emerging Nanoelectronics (RAVEN) program. The RAVEN program is envisioned to begin by August 1, 2016 and end by July 31, 2021.
1.A. Program Overview
1.A.1. Introduction Between 2011 and 2015, the semiconductor industry saw significant advances in both the scaling of integrated circuits and 3-D integration of multiple wafers, monolithically grown stacked circuits, and non-CMOS structures. Multiple flash memory manufacturers are fabricating 16+ stacked chips for memory and logic-in-memory applications. In addition, 2.5 D circuits mounted on an interposer die have become an industry standard. High-yield manufacturing of these structures will require unique capabilities for process verification and failure analysis. Similarly, in keeping with Moore’s Law scaling, 14 nm microprocessors have been in production since July 2014 and 7 nm circuits were demonstrated at Albany Nanotech in early 2015.1 Samsung Corporation, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), and GlobalFoundries have announced plans to ship production-quality 10 nm integrated circuits in late 20162, Intel plans to ship 10 nm integrated circuits in 20173, and TSMC plans to offer 7 nm chips in 2017. 4 Manufacturing at these technology nodes will require high-speed and high-resolution image acquisition for process verification and failure analysis.
The RAVEN program is focused on developing an analysis tool capable of imaging minimum size circuit features on a silicon integrated circuit chip. The features of interest include metal, polysilicon, vias, contacts, shallow trench isolation (STI) regions, and dielectrics. The ability to image n- and p-wells is desired but not required. Possible tool approaches may include but are not limited to x-ray based microscopes, high brightness scanning electron systems, multi-beam scanning electron microscopes, non-scanned projected image electron systems, ion beam imaging systems, ultra-high resolution interference optical microscopes, and multiple array AFM systems. The program is also interested in sample preparation innovations relevant to specific techniques, and novel approaches to image reconstruction for 2-D and 3-D devices.
1 http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/47301.wss. 2 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328272. 3 http://www.extremetech.com/computing/210050-intel-confirms-10nm-delayed-to-2017-will-introduce-kaby-lake-at-14nm-to-fill-gap. 4 http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/future_rd.htm.
Page 6
1.A.2. RAVEN Research Challenges The RAVEN program encompasses four major areas for the tool development: rapid acquisition of images from a bare die; real-time image analysis with in-situ feedback to minimize or eliminate reworks due to image anomalies; innovative algorithms for reconstructing the images of individual device layers and the overall device; and computational resources for acquiring, moving, storing, and analyzing petabyte size data files. Both destructive and non-destructive image acquisition techniques are sought and are described below. The sample preparation appropriate for a given technique is expected to occur prior to loading into the tool.
1.A.2.1. Destructive Image Acquisition Most integrated circuit failure analysis and process verification labs utilize a combined Focused Ion Beam and Scanning Electron Microscope (FIB/SEM) tool to acquire images from the various layers of the device. The typical process uses a SEM with a high-resolution stage to take a group of images from a layer of the device. The group of images is then assembled to map the entire layer; this assembled image is then checked for discontinuities, imaging errors, or any other artifacts. Any errors will result in a rework, i.e., re-taking images from the entire layer. Next, the FIB tool is used to (uniformly) etch to the next via or metal layer of the device and the process is repeated. The speed of image acquisition is determined by the number of pixels per minimum feature size, the scanning/stepping speed of the high-resolution stage, and the overall area and volume of the device under test. In the RAVEN program, tools utilizing a destructive process will be limited to a maximum of five (5) samples to acquire, analyze, and reconstruct the images. All the images must be taken from a single tool, i.e., no parallel analysis. In addition, the tool must incorporate the real-time image checking with in-situ feedback to reduce or eliminate the reworking of a given layer. Regardless of the specific implementation, all images must be obtained and the device layers reconstructed within the specified time frame, with the requisite resolution described in 1.C.
1.A.2.2. Nondestructive Image Acquisition Over the past 10 years, image acquisition using X-Ray Microscopes based on Fresnel zone plates and computed tomography has been demonstrated for integrated circuits as a viable nondestructive analysis technique. 5,6 The technique requires a monochromatic source of x-rays, either from a laboratory source or a higher flux source, such as a synchrotron. This combination enables volumetric image capture. The tomographic reconstruction allows for a “virtual delayering” of the device under test, i.e., an image of each individual layer of the device can be reconstructed. In addition, recent results using coherent diffractive imaging (CDI) or ptychography, show promise for resolution below 10 nm.7
5 S.H. Lau, A. Tkachuk, M. Feser, H. Cui, F. Duewer, W. Yun, D. Vallet, “Non Destructive Failure Analysis Technique With a Laboratory Based 3D X-ray Nanotomography System”, LSI Testing Symposium 2006, Osaka, Japan. 6 M. Bajura, G. Boverman, J. Tan, G. Wagenbreth, C.M. Rogers, M. Feser, J. Rudati, A. Tkachuk, S. Aylward, P. Reynolds, “Imaging Integrated Circuits with X-ray Microscopy, 36th GOMAC Tech Conference, March 2011, Orlando, FL. 7 M. Guizar-Sicairos, I. Johnson, A. Diaz, M. Holler, P. Karvinen, H-C. Stadler, R. Dinapoli, O. Bunk, A. Menzel, “High-throughput ptychography using Eiger: scanning X-ray nano-imaging of extended regions,” Optics Express, Vol. 22, No. 10.
Page 7
In the RAVEN program, tools utilizing a nondestructive process will be limited to a single sample to acquire, analyze, and reconstruct the images. As stated earlier, the tool must incorporate the real-time image checking with in-situ feedback to eliminate the reworking of a specific location on the die. All images must be obtained and the device layers reconstructed within the specified time frame, with the requisite resolution described in 1.C.
1.A.3. Teaming
To address the combination of challenges presented by RAVEN, IARPA anticipates that offeror teams will be multi-disciplinary and may include, but need not be limited to, members with expertise in image analysis, failure analysis, electron microscopy, x-ray microscopy, and sample preparation. Offerors must demonstrate the completeness of their team in their Management Plan, and that their team does not lack capabilities necessary for success, that their team is tightly knit with strong management and a single point of contact, and that each team member contributes significantly to the program goals – both depth and diversity will be beneficial.
1.B. Program Structure, Milestones, and Metrics The RAVEN program consists of three (3) phases. The first phase will include specific technical goals that must be achieved to proceed to the second phase. This includes the development of a laboratory bench-top or demonstration test tool to validate the technical approach and elucidate tool needs. The second phase will culminate with the development of an “alpha” prototype tool and application demonstration, including the specific technical goals to be achieved to proceed to the third phase. The third phase will further develop and refine the initial prototype into a “beta” tool suitable for use in a research environment. The schedule and main goals of the three phases are briefly described below:
• Phase 1 is 24 months in duration and will focus on developing the analysis tool. It does not have to be an integrated tool. The main goals of this phase are to design, model or simulate, then build and demonstrate the proposed analysis tool as a laboratory platform and demonstrate its capability to perform analysis on test chips > 14 nm.
• Phase 2 is 24 months in duration and will focus on building and optimizing a prototype integrated tool to further advance analysis capability to the 10 nm node. The goals of this phase are to optimize the performance of the proposed tool and demonstrate the tool in an analysis of a 10 nm test chip, for either circuit design debug or failure analysis. This may involve the application/integration of multiple circuit analysis techniques.
• Phase 3 is 12 months in duration and will focus on tool and algorithm refinements to further optimize the prototype tool and demonstrate performance on a 10 nm test chip.
We provide further details of the expected tool performance in Section 1.C, and program milestones and waypoints in Section 1.D of this document.
1.C. Program Schedule and Deliverables The Government Team will use the technical objectives and metrics listed in Table 1 to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed solutions in achieving the stated program goals, and to determine whether satisfactory progress is being made to warrant continued funding of the program. Offerors may propose additional objectives and metrics within each performance year. Additional program
Page 8
objectives and metrics provide evidence that the technical and programmatic risks associated with the proposed approach are being addressed. Additional objectives and metrics must be clear and well-defined, with a logical connection to enabling offeror decisions and/or Government decisions. These metrics and program schedule constraints are intended to bound the scope of effort, while affording maximum flexibility, creativity, and innovation in proposing solutions to the stated problem. Table 1: RAVEN Technical Objectives and Metrics Metric Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Duration/Goal 24 Months / Develop
Test Bench Tool 24 Months / Develop
Alpha Prototype 12 Months / Finalize
Beta Prototype
Time 80 days to acquire images and
reconstruct all circuit layers with > 90%
accuracy
40 days to acquire images and
reconstruct all circuit layers with 100%
accuracy
25 days to acquire images and
reconstruct all circuit layers with 100%
accuracy
Lateral Resolution 20 nm <10 nm <10 nm
Vertical Resolution 20 nm <10 nm <10 nm
Metal Layers < 13 < 13 < 13
Reproducibility 95% 100%
Test Articles Bare die > 14 nm feature size
Bare die, 10 nm feature size
Bare die, 10 nm feature size
NOTE: Features to be imaged include metal, polysilicon, vias, contacts, STI regions, and dielectrics. The RAVEN program is divided into three phases. Phase 1 covers the analysis tool development, culminating in a laboratory demonstration platform, and analysis tests on IARPA supplied test chips. Phase 2 covers the “alpha” prototype tool fabrication, optimization to achieve more aggressive performance objectives, and application development, culminating in a demonstration of analysis on IARPA supplied test chips. The Alpha prototype is expected to demonstrate the tool proof of principle, meet the stated metrics, and be operable by the design team. Phase 3 covers the “beta” prototype tool refinement, with a final demonstration on an IARPA supplied test chip. The Beta prototype tool is expected to incorporate the learnings from the Alpha tool, improve the user interface, meet the stated metrics, and be ready for installation in an R&D laboratory for further test, evaluation, and application. The lateral and vertical resolution refers to the ability of the system to distinguish detail in the features on a semiconductor die at the specified dimensions. Reproducibility means that the signal-to-noise and resolution of the images are consistent within 5% for measurements on the same device. Reconstruction accuracy is referenced to the same ROI (region of interest) on an equivalent test chip. It is expected that the system will have the computational and graphical capability to acquire, move, store, and analyze image files ranging from tens of gigabytes to tens of petabytes (cloud computing approaches are acceptable).
Page 9
To increase the likelihood that the objectives and metrics will be met, several minimum progress milestones are outlined below in Tables 2-4. Table 2: RAVEN Phase 1 (Demonstrate Laboratory Tool/Techniques) Milestones and Deliverables
Month Milestone Deliverable 5 Concept design and/or feasibility study completed Requirements Document
containing a brief description of the major features/capabilities of the hardware and software
11 Algorithm development and test-bench design complete
Architectural Specification for the overall tool and the hardware and software portions and the test strategy
18 Laboratory demonstration platform built System Design Specification
22 Demonstration of laboratory tool performance Software and Report describing the demonstrated capabilities and results1
Table 3: RAVEN Phase 2 (Demonstrate Alpha Prototype Tool) Milestones and Deliverables
Month Milestone Deliverable 30 Identification of tool improvement areas Report containing the
items to be changed / improved and plan for achievement1
35 Algorithm modifications and prototype design complete
Updated Architectural Specification
42 Prototype demonstration platform built System Design Specification
46 Demonstration of prototype tool Software and Firmware files, Report describing the demonstrated capabilities and results
Page 10
Table 4: RAVEN Phase 3 (Demonstrate Beta Prototype Tool with real-time checking and repeatability) Milestones and Deliverables
Month Milestone Deliverable 54 Basic real-time checking operational Report1 58 Demonstrate real-time checking with feedback loop,
repeatability and reliability Software and Firmware files, Report describing the demonstrated capabilities and results
60 Complete tool development and documentation Prototype, Software and Manuals, including the User, Installation and Maintenance Manuals.
1Reports shall contain a detailed list and description of proposed and realized capabilities All milestones and metrics will be verified by the RAVEN Test and Evaluation (T&E) Team. Government furnished equipment (GFE) and government furnished information (GFI) will include integrated circuit chips at the appropriate technology node. Other GFE/GFI is described in section 1.E.
1.D. Program Waypoints To increase the likelihood that the milestones and metrics will be met, several minimum progress waypoints are outlined below in Table 5. Program waypoints are scheduled capabilities and/or activities. Offerors may propose additional Waypoints beyond the required minimums, if they are considered important for confirmation of technical progress in any matter of development, and on which milestone success relies. Waypoints provide unambiguous goals for all related developments supporting successful milestones. They provide a simplified and visible but quantitative measure of team progress toward milestones, and enable teams to efficiently map out technical development paths, priorities, and risk mitigation to achieve required capabilities. Waypoints are program management tools which benefit both performers and the Government. Together with milestones, they provide a complete, unambiguous set of expectations that quantify what stakeholders – both performers and the Government – can rely on as the definition of success. They provide a series of distinct checkpoints and measures of progress that enable the Program Manager (PM) and his advisors to provide more effective guidance and assistance to performers. From these the PM can accurately assess whether the program as a whole is on the right path, or whether course correction is needed to ensure program success. Additional offeror-specified waypoints will provide the Government additional insight into key aspects of the research beyond the scheduled milestone reviews. Added waypoints may also include critical analyses and empirical studies supporting key R&D activities. Proposals shall include a rationale, definition, figures of merit, with associated methods for measurement, and additional metrics for each additional offered waypoint. All offeror-specified waypoints shall provide a clear measure of progress toward meeting the program milestones.
Page 11
Waypoints are to be reviewed during site visits and program reviews. Offerors shall propose individual schedules respecting as a minimum the scheduled milestones and waypoints. Table 5: RAVEN Waypoints Months after
Program Start
Waypoint Description Requirement Intent
1 Program Kick-Off Meeting
Attendance and Technical Presentation
Official project start
5 PI Review Progress and schedule, discussion of planned tool
capabilities
Government team review of progress
11 Performer Site Visits
Progress and schedule Mid-Term Review and Funding Continuance
17 PI Review Progress and schedule Government team review of progress
23 Performer Site Visits
Phase 1 Milestones, Progress, and Schedule Review
Funding Continuance
23 Site Visit Laboratory Tool Operational T&E Team verify tool performance
25 Phase 2 Kick-Off Meeting
Attendance and technical presentation
Review Phase 2 requirements and
objects 29 PI Review Progress and schedule,
discussion of tool capabilities Government team review of progress
35 Performer Site Visits
Progress and schedule Demonstrate tool capability
41 PI Review Progress and schedule, discussion of tool capabilities
and user interface
Government team review of progress
47 Performer Site Visits
Phase 2 Milestones, Progress, and Schedule Review
Funding Continuance
47 Site Visit Prototype Tool Operational T&E Team verify tool performance and
ease of use 49 Phase 3 Kick-Off
Meeting Attendance and technical
presentation Review Phase 3
requirements and objects
53 PI Review Progress and schedule, discussion of tool capabilities
and user interface
Government team review of progress
56 Performer Site Visits
Phase 3 Milestones, Progress, and Schedule Review
Demonstrate tool capability
59 Site Visit Prototype Tool Operational T&E Team verify tool performance
60 Program Workshop Attendance and presentation Report
Page 12
1.E. Assistance from Other Government Agencies (OGAs), Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) Other government agencies (OGAs), Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) are not eligible to submit proposals under this BAA or participate as team members under proposals submitted by eligible entities. However, the Government has developed data, information, knowledge, processes and capabilities (collectively hereinafter, Capabilities) that are unavailable in the private sector and that may be useful in implementing an offeror's proposed solutions to the RAVEN BAA. A brief description of the capabilities that may be relevant to the IARPA RAVEN program are provided in APPENDIX I: “Available Government X-Ray Beam Facilities”.
Offerors who believe that their proposed RAVEN solutions need access to and use of these unique Government Capabilities should include in their proposal a description of the particular Capability they seek, how the offeror will integrate these Capabilities with their proposed solution to meet the RAVEN program goals, and the estimated costs associated with the use of the Capability. If appropriate and available, IARPA will endeavor to provide to the performer as Government Furnished Equipment / Property / Information those Capabilities IARPA deems necessary to meet RAVEN program goals. Making use of one or more of these capabilities is not required and is at the sole discretion of the offeror.
If an offeror seeks a unique capability available only at an OGA, FFRDC, or UARC that is not identified in Appendix I, the offeror should identify the capability and its source in an email to [email protected]. This email should include the organization offering the capability and a technical point of contact. The email must be received no later than 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, February 1, 2016. If the capability is appropriate and available, APPENDIX I will be amended accordingly.
Page 13
SECTION 2: AWARD INFORMATION The RAVEN program is envisioned as a 5-year effort that is intended to begin in July 2016. Phase 1 of the program (Base Period) will last 24 months with two possible Option Periods - Phase 2 (Option Period 1) will last 24 months, and Phase 3 (Option Period 2) will last 12 months. All option periods must be costed in the proposal as priced options. Costs associated with the commercialization of technology are not allowable under this solicitation. This BAA will result in awards for all phases of the program; however, funding for Optional Period(s) will depend upon performance during the Base Period (and succeeding Optional Periods), as well as program priorities, the availability of funding, and IARPA priorities. Funding of Option Periods is at the sole discretion of the Government. Participants considered for funding in the Option Period will be those performer teams that have made significant technical and programmatic progress in the Base Period and have correctly understood and contributed to the overarching goals of the program. Depending on prior period(s) performance, technical evaluations, availability of funding and IARPA priorities, a performer that fails to demonstrate such progress, or that provides only minor improvements above the current state of the art will not be invited to continue with the Program. Multiple Phase 1 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 offerors. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it determines them to be necessary. Additionally, IARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for negotiations for award. In the event that IARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that offeror. Awards under this BAA will be made to offerors on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed in 5.A, program balance, and availability of funds. Proposals selected for negotiation may result in procurement contracts. However, the Government reserves the right to negotiate the type of award instrument it determines appropriate under the circumstances. The Government will contact offerors whose proposals are selected for negotiations to obtain additional information required for award. The Government may establish a deadline for the close of fact-finding and negotiations that allows a reasonable time for the award of a contract. Offerors that are not responsive to Government-established deadlines communicated with the request may be removed from award consideration. Offerors may also be removed from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on contract terms, conditions, and cost/price within a reasonable time.
Page 14
SECTION 3: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
3.A. Eligible Applicants All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this announcement will be set aside for these organizations’ participation due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas for exclusive competition among these entities. Other Government Agencies, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) facilities, Government Military Academies, and any other similar type of organization that has a special relationship with the Government, that gives them access to privileged and/or proprietary information or access to Government equipment or real property, are not eligible to submit proposals under this BAA or participate as team members under proposals submitted by eligible entities. An entity of which only a portion has been designated as a UARC may be eligible to submit a proposal or participate as a team member subject to an organizational conflict of interest review described in section 3.A.1. Foreign entities and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary Non-Disclosure Agreements, Security Regulations, Export Control Laws and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances. Offerors are expected to ensure that the efforts of foreign participants do not either directly or indirectly compromise the laws of the United States, nor its security interests. As such, offerors should carefully consider the roles and responsibilities of foreign participants as they pursue teaming arrangements to propose to the RAVEN BAA.
3.A.1. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) “Organizational conflict of interest” means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person’s objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage. If a prospective offeror, or any of its proposed subcontractor teammates, believes that a potential conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise), the offeror should promptly raise the issue with IARPA and submit a notification by e-mail to the mailbox address for this BAA at [email protected]. All notifications must be submitted through the offeror, regardless of whether the notification addresses a potential OCI for the offeror or one of its subcontractor teammates. A potential conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, any instance where an offeror, or any of its proposed subcontractor teammates, is providing either scientific, engineering and technical assistance (SETA) or technical consultation to IARPA. In all cases, the offeror shall identify the contract under which the SETA or consultant support is being provided. Without a waiver from the IARPA Director, neither an offeror, nor its proposed subcontractor teammates, can simultaneously provide SETA support or technical consultation to IARPA and compete or perform as a Performer under this solicitation.
Page 15
All facts relevant to the existence of the potential conflict of interest, real or perceived, should be disclosed in the notification. The request should also include a proposed plan to avoid, neutralize or mitigate such conflict. The offeror, or subcontractor teammate as appropriate, shall certify that all information provided is accurate and complete, and that all potential conflicts, real or perceived, have been disclosed. It is recommended that an offeror submit this notification as soon as possible after release of the BAA before significant time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal. If, in the sole opinion of the Government, after full consideration of the circumstances, the conflict situation cannot be resolved or waived, any proposal submitted by the offeror that includes the conflicted entity will be excluded from consideration for award. As part of their proposal, offerors who have identified any potential conflicts of interest shall include either an approved waiver signed by the IARPA Director, an IARPA Determination letter stating that no conflict of interest exists, or a copy of their notification. Otherwise, offerors shall include in their proposal a written certification that neither they nor their subcontractor teammates have any potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived. A sample certification is provided in APPENDIX D. If, at any time during the solicitation or award process, IARPA discovers that an offeror has a potential conflict of interest and no notification has been submitted by the offeror, IARPA reserves the right to immediately withdraw the proposal from further consideration for award. Offerors are strongly encouraged to read “Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity’s (IARPA) Approach to Managing Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)”, found on IARPA’s website at: http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/working-with-iarpa/iarpas-approach-to-oci.
3.B. US Academic Institutions According to Executive Order 12333, as amended, paragraph 2.7, “Elements of the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. Contracts or arrangements with academic institutions may be undertaken only with the consent of appropriate officials of the institution.” It is highly recommended that offerors submit with their proposal a completed and signed Academic Institution Acknowledgement Letter for each U.S. academic organization that is a part of their team, whether the academic institution is serving in the role of prime, or a subcontractor or consultant at any tier of their team. A template of the Academic Institution Acknowledgement Letter is enclosed in this BAA at APPENDIX A. It should be noted that an appropriate senior official from the institution, typically the President, Chancellor, Provost, or other appropriately designated official must sign the completed form. Note that this paperwork must be received before IARPA can enter into any negotiations with any offeror when a U.S. academic institution is a part of its team.
Page 16
3.C. Other Eligibility Criteria
3.C.1. Collaboration Efforts Collaborative efforts and teaming arrangements among potential performers are strongly encouraged. Specific content, communications, networking and team formations are the sole responsibility of the participants.
SECTION 4: PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION This notice constitutes the total BAA and contains all information required to submit a proposal. No additional forms, kits, or other materials are required.
4.A. Content and Form of Application Submission
4.A.1. Proposal Information Interested offerors are required to submit full proposals in order to receive consideration for funding. All proposals submitted under the terms and conditions cited in this BAA will be reviewed. Proposals must be received by the time and date specified in section 4.C.1 in order to be assured of consideration during the initial round of selections. IARPA may evaluate proposals received after this date for a period of up to one year from the date of initial posting on FedBizOpps. Selection remains contingent on the evaluation criteria, program balance and availability of funds. The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included in a single proposal. Offerors shall submit proposals for a Base Period of 24 months and two Option Periods, Option Period 1 for 24 months and Option Period 2 for 12 months. The Government intends to use employees of Vencore, Booz Allen Hamilton, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), BRTRC Federal Solutions, OPS Consulting LLC, and TeleCommunication Systems Inc. (TCS) to provide expert advice regarding portions of the proposals submitted to the Government and to provide logistical support in carrying out the evaluation process. These personnel will have signed and be subject to the terms and conditions of non-disclosure agreements. By submission of its proposal, an offeror agrees that its proposal information may be disclosed to employees of these organizations for the limited purpose stated above. Offerors who object to this arrangement must provide clear notice of their objection as part of their transmittal letter. If offerors do not send notice of objection to this arrangement in their transmittal letter, the Government will assume consent to the use of contractor support personnel in assisting the review of submittal(s) under this BAA. Only Government personnel will make evaluation and award determinations under this BAA.
Page 17
All administrative correspondence and questions regarding this solicitation should be directed by email to [email protected]. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the procedures provided in Section 4.C.2.
4.A.2. Proposal Format All proposals must be in the format given below. Non-compliant proposals may be rejected without review. Proposals shall consist of two volumes: “Volume 1 - Technical and Management Proposal” and “Volume 2 - Cost Proposal.” All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point and at least one-inch margins on all sides. Foldout pages shall not be used. Font size for figures, tables and charts shall generally not be smaller than 10 point. The page limitation for full proposals includes all figures, tables, and charts. All pages must be numbered. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or presentations beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not acceptable and will be discarded without review.
4.A.3. Proposal Classification The Government anticipates that proposals submitted under this BAA will be unclassified. No classified information will be accepted in response to this BAA.
4.B. Proposal Content Specifics Each proposal submitted in response to this BAA shall consist of the following: Volume 1 – Technical & Management Proposal Section 1 - Cover Sheet & Transmittal Letter Section 2 – Summary of Proposal Section 3 – Detailed Proposal Section 4 – Attachments (number appropriately for elements included)
1 – Academic Institution Acknowledgment Letter(s), if required 2 – Restrictions on Intellectual Property Rights 3 – OCI Waiver, Determination, Notification, or Certification 4 – Bibliography 5 – Relevant Papers (up to three) 6 – Human Use Documentation, if applicable (see Section 6.B.4) 7 – Consultant Letters of Commitment 8 – Three-Chart Summary of the Proposal
Volume 2 – Cost Proposal Section 1 – Cover Sheet Section 2 – Detailed Estimated Cost Breakdown
4.B.1. Volume 1, Technical and Management Proposal {Limit of 35 pages} Volume 1, Technical and Management Proposal, may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas and approach on which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three relevant papers can be included with the submission. The submission of other supporting
Page 18
materials along with the proposal is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review. Except for the cover sheet, transmittal letter, table of contents (optional), and the attachments included in Volume 1, Section 4, Volume 1 shall not exceed 35 pages. Any pages exceeding this limit will be removed and not considered during the evaluation process. Full proposals must be accompanied by an official transmittal letter, using contractor format. All proposals must be written in English.
4.B.1.1. Section 1: Cover Sheet & Transmittal Letter A. Cover sheet: (See APPENDIX B for Cover Sheet Template) B. Official Transmittal Letter.
4.B.1.2. Section 2: Summary of Proposal {Limit of 10 pages} Section 2 shall provide an overview of the proposed work as well as introduce associated technical and management issues. This section shall contain a technical description of and technical approach to the research as well as a succinct portrayal of the uniqueness and benefits of the proposed work. It shall make the technical objectives clear and quantifiable and shall provide a project schedule with definite decision points and endpoints. Offerors must address: A. A technical overview of the proposed research and plan: This section is the centerpiece of
the proposal and should succinctly describe the proposed approach and research. The overview should provide an intuitive understanding of the approach and design, technical rationale, and constructive plan for accomplishment of technical goals and deliverable production. The approach should be supported by basic, clear, calculations/estimates. Additionally, proposals should clearly explain the innovative claims and 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 use of non-standard terms and acronyms should be avoided. This section will be supplemented with a more detailed plan in Volume 1, Section 3 of the proposal.
B. A summary table of the calculated Phase 1, 2, and 3 end-of-phase system performance metrics that includes the page number(s) of Volume 1, Section 3 of the proposal which provide details on how the performance metric will be achieved. The table should not just simply list the IARPA program metrics and state they can be achieved, but provide calculated values from the proposed approach.
C. Summary of the products, transferable technology and deliverables associated with the proposed research results. Define measurable deliverables that show progress toward achieving the stated Program Milestones. Detail in Attachment 2 all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this should be stated. Should no proprietary claims be made, Government rights will be unlimited.
D. Schedule and milestones for the proposed research. Summarize, in table form, the schedule
and milestones for the proposed research. Do not include proprietary information with the milestones.
Page 19
E. Related research. General discussion of other research in this area. F. Project contributors. Offerors must include a clearly defined organizational chart of all
anticipated project participants.
G. A three chart 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 H to this BAA and does not count against the page limit. Slide 1 should be a self-contained, intuitive description of the technical approach and performance. These slides may be used during the evaluation process to present a summary of the proposal from the proposers view.
H. Technical Resource Summary:
• Summarize total level of effort by labor category and technical discipline (i.e. research scientist/chemist/physicist/engineer/administrative, etc.) and affiliation (prime/ subcontractor/consultant). Key Personnel shall be identified by name. Provide a brief description of the qualifications for each labor category (i.e. education, certifications, years of experience, etc.)
• Summarize level of effort by labor category and technical discipline for each major task, by affiliation
• Identify software and intellectual property required to perform, by affiliation (List each item separately)
• Identify materials and equipment (such as IT) required to perform, by affiliation (List each item separately)
• Identify any other resources required to perform (i.e. services, data sets, facilities, government furnished property, etc., by affiliation, list each item separately)
• Estimated travel, including purpose of travel and number of personnel per trip, by affiliation
The above information shall cross reference to the tasks set forth in the offerors statement of work, as described in BAA section 4.B.1.3, and shall be supported by the detailed cost and pricing information provided in the offeror's Volume 2 Cost Proposal.
4.B.1.3. Section 3: Detailed Proposal Information This section of the proposal shall provide the detailed, in-depth discussion of the proposed research as well as supporting information about the offeror’s capabilities and resources. Specific attention must be given to addressing both the risks and payoffs of the proposed research and why the proposed research is desirable for IARPA to pursue. This part shall provide: A. Statement of Work (SOW) - In plain English, clearly define the technical tasks and sub-tasks
to be performed, their durations and the dependencies among them. For each task and sub-task, provide: • A general description of the objective; • A detailed description of the approach to be taken, developed in an orderly progression
and in enough detail to establish the feasibility of accomplishing the goals of the task;
Page 20
• Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution (prime, sub-contractor, team member, etc.) by name;
• The exit criteria for each task/activity, i.e., a product, event or milestone that defines its completion;
• Definition of all deliverables (e.g., data, reports, software, etc.) to be provided to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities.
Note: Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW. At the end of this section, provide a Gantt chart, showing all the tasks and sub-tasks on the left with the performance period (in years/quarters) on the right. All milestones shall be clearly labeled on the chart. B. A detailed description of the objectives, scientific relevance, technical approach and expected
significance of the work. The key elements of the proposed work should be clearly identified and related to each other. Proposals should clearly detail the technical method(s) and/or approach(es) that will be used to meet or exceed each program milestone and should provide ample justification as to why the proposed method(s)/approach(es) is/are feasible. Any anticipated risks should be described and possible mitigations proposed. General discussion of the problem without specific detail about the technical implementation will result in an unacceptable rating.
C. State-of-the-art. Comparison with other on-going research, highlighting the uniqueness of the proposed effort/approach and differences between the proposed effort and the current state-of-the-art clearly stated. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed work with respect to potential alternative approaches.
D. Data sources. Identification and description of data sources to be utilized in pursuit of the
project research goals. Offerors proposing to use existing data sets must provide written verification that all data were obtained in accordance with U.S. laws and, where applicable, are in compliance with End User License Agreements, Copyright Laws, Terms of Service, and laws and policies regarding privacy protection of U.S. Persons. Offerors shall identify any restrictions on the use or transfer of data sets being used, and, if there are any restrictions, the potential cost to the Government to obtain at least Government Purpose Rights in such data sets.8
8 “Government Purpose Rights” (or “GPR”) means the rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data and computer software within the Government without restriction; and to release or disclose technical data and computer software outside the Government and authorize persons to whom release or disclosure has been made to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose that data or software for any United States Government purpose. United States Government purposes include any activity in which the United States Government is a party, including cooperative agreements with international or multi-national defense organizations, or sales or transfers by the United States Government to foreign governments or international organizations. Government purposes include competitive procurement, but do not include the rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data or computer software for commercial purposes or authorize others to do so.
Page 21
Offerors proposing to obtain new data sets must ensure that their plan for obtaining the data complies with U.S. Laws and where applicable, with End User License Agreement, Copyright Laws, Terms of Service, and laws and policies regarding privacy protection of U.S. Persons. It is not expected that the research will involve human subjects. Proposals that include such research must include a compelling justification and the documentation required in 6.B.4. (Human Use). Documentation must be well written and logical; claims for exemptions from Federal regulations for human subject protection must be accompanied by a strong defense of the claims. The Human Use documentation and the written verification are not included in the total page count.
The Government reserves the right to reject a proposal if it does not appropriately address all data issues.
E. Deliverables. Deliverables are identified in Section 1.C. The Government requires at a minimum Government Purpose Rights for all deliverables; anything less will be considered a weakness in the proposal. However, if limited or restricted rights are asserted by the offeror in any deliverable or component of a deliverable, the proposal must identify the potential cost associated with the Government obtaining Government Purpose Rights in such deliverables. Proposals that do not include this information will be considered non-compliant and may not be reviewed by the Government. In Attachment 2 of the proposal, offerors must describe the proposed approach to intellectual property for all deliverables, together with a supporting rationale of why this approach is in the Government’s best interest. This shall include all proprietary claims to the results, prototypes, intellectual property or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results and/or prototype, and a brief explanation of how the offerors may use these materials in their program. To the greatest extent feasible, offerors should not include background proprietary technical data and computer software as the basis of their proposed technical approach. If offerors (including their proposed teammates) desire to use in their proposed approach, in whole or in part, technical data or computer software or both that is proprietary to offeror, any of its teammates, or any third party, in Attachment 2 they should: (1) clearly identify such data/software and its proposed particular use(s); (2) identify and explain any and all restrictions on the Government’s ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data, computer software, and deliverables incorporating such technical data and computer software; (3) identify the potential cost to the Government to acquire GPR in all deliverables that use the proprietary technical data or computer software the offeror intends to use; (4) explain how the Government will be able to reach its program goals (including transition) within the proprietary model offered; and (5) provide possible nonproprietary alternatives in any area in which a Government entity would have insufficient rights to transfer, within the Government or to Government contractors in support of a
Page 22
Government purpose, deliverables incorporating proprietary technical data or computer software, or that might cause increased risk or cost to the Government under the proposed proprietary solutions. Offerors also shall identify all commercial technical data and/or computer software that may be embedded in any noncommercial deliverables contemplated under the research effort, along with any applicable restrictions on the Government’s use of such commercial technical data and/or computer software. If offerors do not identify any restrictions, the Government will assume that there are no restrictions on the Government’s use of such deliverables. Offerors shall also identify all noncommercial technical data and/or computer software that it plans to generate, develop and/or deliver under any proposed award instrument in which the Government will acquire less than unlimited rights. If the offeror does not submit such information, the Government will assume that it has unlimited rights to all such noncommercial technical data and/or computer software. Offerors shall provide a short summary for each item (commercial and noncommercial) asserted with less than unlimited rights that describes the nature of the restriction and the intended use of the intellectual property in the conduct of the proposed research. Additionally, if offerors propose the use of any open source or freeware, any conditions, restrictions or other requirements imposed by that software must also be addressed in Attachment 2. Offerors should leverage the format in APPENDIX G for their response. (See also section 6.B.3. Intellectual Property.) The technical content of Attachment 2 shall include only the information necessary to address the proposed approach to intellectual property; any other technical discussion in Attachment 2 will not be considered during the evaluation process. Attachment 2 is limited to 5 pages. IARPA recognizes only the definitions of intellectual property rights in accordance with the terms as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 27 or otherwise herein. If offerors propose intellectual property rights that are not defined in FAR part 27 or herein, offerors must clearly define such rights in Attachment 2 of their proposal. Offerors are reminded of the requirement for prime contractors to acquire sufficient rights from subcontractors to accomplish the program goals.
F. Cost, schedule, milestones. Cost, schedule, and milestones for the proposed research,
including estimates of cost by task, total cost, and company cost share, if any. Where the effort consists of multiple portions that could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each. The milestones must not include proprietary information.
G. Offeror’s previous accomplishments. Discuss previous accomplishments and work in this or closely related research areas and how these will contribute to and influence the current work.
H. Facilities. Describe the facilities that will be used for the proposed effort, including computational and experimental resources.
Page 23
I. Detailed Management Plan. The Management Plan should identify both the organizations and the individuals within those organizations that make up the team and delineate the expected duties, relevant capabilities and task responsibilities of team members and expected relationships among team members. Expected levels of effort (percentage time or fraction of an FTE) for all key personnel and significant contributors should be clearly noted. A description of the technical, administrative and business structure of the team and the internal communications plan should be included. Project/function/sub-contractor relationships (including formal teaming agreements), Government research interfaces, and planning, scheduling, and control practices should be described. The team leadership structure should be clearly defined. Provide a brief biography of the key personnel (including alternates, if desired) who will be involved in the research along with the amount of effort to be expended by each person during the year. Participation by key personnel and significant contributors is expected to exceed 25% of their time. A compelling explanation of any variation from this figure is required. If the team intends to use consultants, they must be included in the organizational chart as well. Indicate if the person will be an “individual” or “organizational” consultant (that is, will the consultant represent himself/herself or his/her organization). In both cases, the organizational affiliation should be identified. The consultant should make a written commitment to be available to the team; the commitment should be attached to the Cost Volume. Table 6 shows an example chart.
Table 6: Key Personnel
Participants
Citizenship
Org Role Unique, Relevant
Capabilities
Specific Task(s)/
Contributions
Time Commitment
Jane Doe USA ABC
University PI/Key Personnel
Electrical Engineer Program Manager 100%
John Doe, Jr. CAN ABC
University Key Personnel
Computer Programmer
Real-time programming 25%
Dan Doe USA ABC University
Key Personnel Plasma physics Assimilation &
interpolation 90%
Julie Coe, IV UK JCI
Consulting Individual Consultant
Computer science Interface design 200 hours
Rachel Roe, III USA
XYZ Co. Co-PI/Key Personnel
Applied mathematics
Ionospheric weather model design
25%
J. Resource Share. Include the type of support, if any, the offeror might request from the
Government, such as facilities, equipment or materials, or any such resources the offeror is willing to provide at no additional cost to the Government to support the research effort. Cost sharing is not required from offerors and is not an evaluation criterion, but is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.
Page 24
K. The names of other federal, state or local agencies or other parties receiving the proposal and/or funding the proposed effort. If none, so state.
4.B.1.4. Section 4: Attachments
[NOTE: The attachments listed below must be included with the proposal, if applicable, but do not count against the Volume 1 page limit.] Attachment 1: Signed Academic Institution Acknowledgement Letter(s) (if applicable). Template provided as APPENDIX A. See paragraph 3.B, US Academic Institutions. Attachment 2: Restrictions on Intellectual Property Rights (if applicable). Template provided as APPENDIX G. This attachment is limited to 5 pages. Attachment 3: OCI Waiver/Determination/Notification or Certification. Template, provided as APPENDIX D. See paragraph 3.A.1., Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). Attachment 4: Bibliography. A brief bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas on which the proposal is based. Attachment 5: Relevant Papers. Copies of not more than three relevant papers may be included in the submission. The proposers should include a one page technical summary of each paper provided, suitable for individuals who are not experts in the field. Attachment 6: Human Use Documentation. If applicable. See paragraph 6.B.4 for a description of the required documentation. Attachment 7: Consultant Commitment Letters. If applicable. If the offeror intends to utilize any consultants, each consultant must make a written commitment of its participation on the team using his/her preferred format. Attachment 8: Three-Chart Summary of the Proposal. Template provided as APPENDIX H
4.B.2. Volume 2: Cost Proposal {No Page Limit} Section 1: Cover Sheet. See APPENDIX C for Cover Sheet Template
Section 2: Estimated Cost Breakdown.
(1) Cost element breakdown for the base period and each option period for the offeror and each subcontractor. See APPENDIX E and APPENDIX F for format. Educational institutions and non-profit organizations as defined in FAR part 31.3 and 31.7, respectively (prime and subcontractor level), can deviate from the cost template in APPENDIX E and APPENDIX F when estimating the direct labor portion of the proposal to allow for OMB-guided accounting methods that are used by their institutions. The methodology must be clear and provide sufficient detail to substantiate proposed labor costs. For example, each labor
Page 25
category must be listed separately; identify key personnel, and provide hours/rates or salaries and percentage of time allocated to the project. (2) Total cost broken down by major task (3) Major program tasks by fiscal year (4) Proposed subcontract costs and equipment purchases (5) Proposed purchase of any information technology (6) A summary of projected funding requirements by month (7) The source, nature and amount of industry cost-sharing, if any (8) Identification of pricing assumptions which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.).
The prime contractor is responsible for compiling and providing all subcontractor proposals. All subcontractor proposals shall include burdened rates in the cost breakdown listed above. If a proposal is selected for negotiations, both the prime and subcontractors must be prepared to present full cost proposals including all direct and indirect rates immediately upon request by the Contracting Officer. 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. If the offeror asserts limited or restricted rights in any deliverable or component of a deliverable, the cost proposal must separately identify the estimated cost associated with the Government obtaining Government Purpose Rights in such deliverables (reference sections 4.B.1.3.D and 4.B.1.3.E). Supporting cost and pricing information must be provided in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates in Volume 1. Include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation. Key personnel must be listed by name for the prime and all subcontractors. Certified “cost or pricing data” may be required if the offeror is seeking a procurement contract award of $700,000 or greater unless the Contracting Officer approves an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. Consultant letter(s) of commitment shall be attached to the Cost Volume and estimated costs should be included in the cost estimates. IARPA recognizes that undue emphasis on cost may motivate offerors 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. IARPA discourages such cost strategies. Cost reduction approaches that will be received favorably include innovative management concepts that maximize direct funding for technology and limit diversion of funds into overhead.
Page 26
4.C. Submission Details
4.C.1. Due Dates See BAA Overview Information Section for proposal due date and time.
4.C.2. Proposal Delivery Proposals must be submitted electronically through the IARPA Distribution and Evaluation System (IDEAS). Offerors interested in providing a submission in response to this BAA must first register by electronic means in accordance with the instructions provided on the following web site: https://iarpa-ideas.gov. Offerors who plan to submit proposals for evaluation in the first round are strongly encouraged to register at least one week prior to the due date for the first round of proposals. Offerors who do not register in advance do so at their own risk, and IARPA will not extend the due date for the first round of proposals to accommodate such offerors. Failure to register as stated will prevent the offeror’s submission of documents. After registration has been approved, offeror’s should upload proposals, including Volume 1, Volume 2, scanned certifications and permitted additional information in ‘PDF’ format. Offerors are responsible for ensuring compliant and final submission of their proposals to meet the BAA submittal deadlines. Time management to upload and submit is wholly the responsibility of the offeror. Upon completing the proposal submission, the offeror will receive an automated confirmation email from IDEAS. IARPA strongly suggests that the offeror document the submission of their proposal package by printing the electronic receipt (time and date stamped) that appears on the final screen following compliant submission of a proposal to the IDEAS website. Proposals submitted by any means other than IDEAS (e.g., hand-carried, postal service, commercial carrier and email) will not be considered unless the offeror attempted electronic submission, but was unsuccessful. Should an offeror be unable to complete the electronic submission, the offeror must employ the following procedure. The offeror must send an e-mail to [email protected] prior to the proposal due date and time specified in the BAA, and indicate that an attempt was made to submit electronically but that the submission was unsuccessful. This e-mail must include contact information for the offeror. Additional guidance will be provided. Proposals must be submitted by the time and date specified in the BAA in order to be assured of consideration during the first round of selections. IARPA may evaluate proposals received after this date for a period up to one year from the date of initial posting on FedBizOpps. Selection remains contingent on proposal evaluation, program balance and availability of funds. Failure to comply with the submission procedures may result in the submission not being evaluated.
4.D. Funding Restrictions Facility construction costs are not allowable under this activity. Funding may not be used to pay for commercialization of technology.
Page 27
Government facility test costs, if any, are to be reported as a cost share in Volume 1, section (3)(J) rather than being funded directly by the performer. Such use of Government facilities will be a factor in resource realism.
Page 28
SECTION 5: PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION 5.A. Technical and Programmatic Evaluation Criteria The criteria to be used to evaluate and select proposals for this program BAA are described in the following paragraphs. Because there is no common statement of work, each proposal will be evaluated on its own merits and its relevance to the program goals rather than against other proposals responding to this BAA. Specifics about the evaluation criteria are provided below, in descending order of importance. Note to offerors regarding the evaluation criteria: Award(s) will be made to offerors on the basis of the evaluation criteria listed in Section 5.A (Evaluation Criteria), program balance, and availability of funds and subject to successful negotiations with the Government. Award recommendations will not be made to offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are determined not to be selectable. Offerors are cautioned that evaluation ratings may be lowered or proposals rejected if submission instructions are not followed.
5.A.1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit Overall scientific and technical merit of the proposal is substantiated, including unique and innovative methods, approaches, and/or concepts. The offeror clearly articulates an understanding of the problem to be solved. The technical approach is credible, and includes a clear assessment of primary risks and a means to address them. The proposed research advances the state-of-the-art.
5.A.2. Effectiveness of Proposed Work Plan The feasibility and likelihood that the proposed approach will satisfy the program’s milestones and metrics are explicitly described and clearly substantiated along with risk mitigation strategies for achieving stated milestones and metrics. The proposal reflects a mature and quantitative understanding of the Program milestones and metrics, and the statistical confidence with which they may be measured. Any offeror-proposed milestones and metrics are clear and well-defined, with a logical connection to enabling offeror decisions and/or Government decisions. The schedule to achieve the milestones is realistic and reasonable. The roles and relationships of prime and sub-contractors are clearly delineated with all participants fully documented. Work plans must demonstrate the ability to provide full Government visibility into and interaction with key technical activities and personnel, and a single point of responsibility for contract performance. Work plans must also demonstrate that key personnel have sufficient time committed to the Program to accomplish their described Program roles. The requirement and rationale for and the anticipated use or integration of Government resources, including but not limited to all equipment, facilities, information, etc., is fully described including dates when such Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Information (GFI) or other similar Government-provided resources will be required.
Page 29
The offeror’s proposed intellectual property and data rights are consistent with the Government’s need to be able to effectively manage the Program and evaluate the technical output and deliverables, communicate program information across Government organizations and support transition and further use and development of the program results to Intelligence Community users at an acceptable cost. The proposed approach to intellectual property rights is in the Government’s best interest.
5.A.3. Contribution and Relevance to the IARPA Mission and Program Goal The proposed solution meets the letter and intent of the stated program goals and all elements within the proposal exhibit a comprehensive understanding of the problem. The offeror clearly addresses how the proposed effort will meet and progressively demonstrate RAVEN Program goals. The offeror describes how the proposed solution contributes to IARPA’s mission to invest in high-risk/high-payoff research that can provide the U.S. with an overwhelming intelligence advantage over its future adversaries.
5.A.4. Relevant Experience and Expertise The offeror’s capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combination of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposal’s objectives will be evaluated, as well as qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, and key personnel critical in achieving the proposal objectives. Time commitments of key personnel must be sufficient for their proposed responsibilities in the effort.
5.A.5. Resource Realism The proposed resources are well justified and consistent with the unique technical approach and methods of performance described in the offeror’s proposal. Proposed resources reflect a clear understanding of the project, a perception of the risks and the ability to organize and perform the work. The labor hours and mix are consistent with the technical and management proposal and are realistic for the work proposed. Material, equipment, software, data collection and travel, especially foreign travel, are well justified, reasonable, and required for successful execution of the proposed work.
5.B. Evaluation and Selection Process IARPA’s policy is to ensure impartial, equitable, comprehensive proposal evaluations and to select the source (or sources) whose offer meets the Government's technical, policy and programmatic goals. In order to provide the desired evaluation, qualified Government personnel will conduct reviews and may convene panels of experts in the appropriate areas. IARPA will only evaluate proposals against the criteria described under Paragraph 5.A above, and will not evaluate them against other proposals, since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. For evaluation purposes, a proposal is the document described in Sections 4.A and 4.B. Other supporting or background materials submitted with the proposal will not be considered. Only Government personnel will make evaluation and award determinations under this BAA. Selections for award will be made on the basis of the evaluation
Page 30
criteria listed above, program balance and the availability of funds. Selections for award will not be made to offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are determined to be not selectable.
5.C. Negotiation and Contract Award Award of a contract is contingent on successful negotiations. After selection and before award, the contracting officer will determine cost/price realism and reasonableness, to the extent appropriate, and negotiate the terms of the contract. The contracting officer will review anticipated costs, including those of associate, participating organizations, to ensure the offeror has fully analyzed the budget requirements, provided sufficient supporting cost/price information, and that cost data are traceable and reconcilable. Additional information and supporting data may be requested. If the parties cannot reach mutually agreeable terms, a contract will not be awarded.
5.D Proposal Retention IARPA’s policy is to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Proposals will not be returned upon completion of the source selection process. The original of each proposal received will be retained at IARPA and all other non-required copies will be destroyed. A certification of destruction may be requested, provided that the formal request is sent to IARPA via e-mail within five (5) days after notification of proposal results.
SECTION 6: AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION 6.A. Award Notices As soon as the evaluation of a proposal is complete, the offeror will be notified that: (1) the proposal has been selected for negotiations, or (2) the proposal has not been selected.
6.B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
6.B.1. Proprietary Data It is the policy of IARPA to treat all proposals as competitive information, and to disclose their contents, only for the purpose of evaluation. All proposals containing proprietary data should have the cover page and each page containing proprietary data clearly marked as containing proprietary data. It is the offeror’s responsibility to clearly define to the Government what the offeror considers proprietary data. The performer may use their own data for development purposes as long as they follow the guidelines in 6.B.12 Lawful Use and Privacy Protection Measures.
Page 31
6.B.2. Intellectual Property
6.B.2.A. Noncommercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) Offerors responding to this BAA requesting a procurement contract shall identify in Volume 1, Attachment 2 of the proposal all noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software that it plans to generate, develop and/or deliver under any proposed award instrument in which the Government will acquire less than unlimited rights and to assert specific restrictions on those deliverables, the basis for such restrictions, the potential cost to the Government to acquire GPR in all deliverables incorporating such noncommercial technical data and computer software, and the intended use of the technical data and noncommercial computer software in the conduct of the proposed research and development of applicable deliverables. If offerors intend to incorporate noncommercial, proprietary technical data or computer software into any deliverable, offerors should provide in Volume 1, Attachment 2 of their proposals all of the information regarding such proprietary technical data or computer software as described in sections 4.B.1.3(D) and 4.B.1.3(E) of this BAA. In the event that offerors do not submit such information, the Government will assume that it automatically has unlimited rights to all noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software generated, developed, and/or delivered under any award instrument, unless it is substantiated that development of the noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software occurred with mixed funding. If mixed funding is anticipated in the development of noncommercial technical data and noncommercial computer software generated, developed and/or delivered under any award instrument, then offerors should identify the data and software in question and that the Government will receive GPR in such data and software. The Government will automatically assume that any such GPR restriction is limited to a period of five years, at which time the Government will acquire unlimited rights unless the parties agree otherwise. A sample format for complying with this request is shown in APPENDIX G. If no restrictions are intended, then the offeror should state “NONE.” Offerors are advised that the Government will use this information during the source selection evaluation process to evaluate the impact of any identified restrictions and may request additional information from the offeror, as may be necessary, to evaluate the offeror’s assertions. For all technical data and computer software that the offeror intends to deliver with other than unlimited rights that are identical or substantially similar to technical data and computer software that the offeror has produced for, delivered to, or is obligated to deliver to the Government under any contract or subcontract, the offeror shall identify the contract number under which the data, software, or documentation were produced; the contract number under which, and the name and address of the organization to whom, the data and software were most recently delivered or will be delivered; and any limitations on the Government’s rights to use or disclose the data and software, including, when applicable, identification of the earliest date the limitations expire.
6.B.2.B. Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software) Offerors shall identify in Section 4 (Attachment 2, template provided as APPENDIX G) of its proposal all commercial technical data and commercial computer software that may be incorporated in any noncommercial deliverables contemplated under the research effort, along
Page 32
with any applicable restrictions on the Government’s use of such commercial technical data and/or commercial computer software. In the event that offerors do not submit the list, the Government will assume that there are no restrictions on the Government’s use of such commercial items. The Government may use the list during the source selection evaluation process to evaluate the impact of any identified restrictions and may request additional information from the offeror, as may be necessary, to evaluate the offeror’s assertions. If no restrictions are intended, then the offeror should state “NONE.” A sample format for complying with this request is shown in APPENDIX G.
6.B.2.C. All Offerors – Patents Include documentation using the format provided in APPENDIX G, proving ownership of or possession of appropriate licensing rights to all patented inventions (or inventions for which a patent application has been filed) that will be utilized under the proposal for the IARPA program. If a patent application has been filed for an invention that the proposal utilizes, but the application has not yet been made publicly available and contains proprietary information, the offeror may provide only the patent number, inventor name(s), assignee names (if any), filing date, filing date of any related provisional application, and a summary of the patent title, together with either: (1) a representation that the offeror owns the invention, or (2) proof of possession of appropriate licensing rights in the invention. If offerors intend to incorporate patented technology into any deliverable, i.e., if offerors intend for any deliverable to embody any invention covered by any patent or patent application the offerors list in APPENDIX G, offerors should also provide in Volume 1, Attachment 2 of their proposals all of the information described in section 4.B.1.3(E) of this BAA.
6.B.2.D. All Offerors – Intellectual Property Representations The offeror shall provide a good faith representation that they either own or possess appropriate licensing rights to all other intellectual property that will be utilized under their proposal for the RAVEN program.
6.B.3. Meeting and Travel Requirements Performers are expected to assume responsibility for administration of their projects and to comply with contractual and program requirements for reporting, attendance at program workshops and availability for site visits.
6.B.3.A. Workshops The RAVEN Program intends to hold a Program-level Kick-Off meeting during the first month of the Program and then hold Program-level Workshops per Table 5. These two to three day Workshops will focus on technical aspects of the Program and on facilitating open technical exchanges, interaction and sharing among the various Program participants. Program participants will be expected to present the technical status and progress of their projects as well as to demonstrate their technical capabilities to other participants and invited guests at these events.
Page 33
6.B.3.B. Site Visits Site visits by the Contracting Officer Representative and the RAVEN Program Manager will take place per Table 5. These visits will occur at the performer’s facility. Reports on technical progress, details of successes and issues, contributions to the program goals and technology demonstrations will be expected at such visits.
6.B.4. Human Use
All research involving human subjects, to include use of human biological specimens and human data, selected for funding must comply with the federal regulations for human subject protection, namely 45 CFR Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html).
Institutions awarded funding for research involving human subjects must provide documentation of a current Assurance of Compliance with Federal regulations for human subject protection, for example a Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protection Federal Wide Assurance (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp). All institutions engaged in human subject research, to include sub-contractors, must also have a valid Assurance.
For all proposed research that will involve human subjects, the institution must provide evidence of or a plan for review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) on final proposal submission to IARPA. The IRB conducting the review must be the IRB identified on the institution’s Assurance. The protocol, separate from the proposal, must include a detailed description of the research plan, study population, risks and benefits of study participation, recruitment and consent process, data collection, and data analysis. Consult the designated IRB for guidance on writing the protocol. The informed consent document must comply with federal regulations (45 C.F.R. Part 46).
The amount of time required to complete the IRB review/approval process may vary depending on the complexity of the research and/or the level of risk to study participants. Ample time should be allotted to complete the approval process. The IRB approval process can last between one to three months. No IARPA funding can be used towards human-subject research until ALL approvals are granted.
In limited instances, human subject research may be exempt from Federal regulations for human subject protection, for example, under Department of Health and Human Services, 45 C.F.R. § 46.101(b). Offerors claiming that their research falls within an exemption from Federal regulations for human subject protection must provide written documentation with their proposal that cites the specific applicable exemption and explains clearly how their proposed research fits within that exemption.
6.B.5. Publication Approval It is anticipated that research funded under this program will be unclassified research that will not require a pre-publication review with IARPA. However, performers will need to remain complaint with publication approval requirements described in their agreements with Data Provider(s) to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of proprietary or sensitive information. Performers should note that pre-publication approval of research information associated with
Page 34
IARPA may be required if it is determined that the release of such information may result in the disclosure of sensitive information. Prior to public release, a courtesy soft copy of any work submitted for publication must be provided to the IARPA Program Manager and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR), as well as a copy of the publication.
6.B.6. Export Control
(1) The offeror shall comply with all U.S. export control laws and regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. Parts 120 through 130, and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 C.F.R. Parts 730 through 799, in the performance of this contract. In the absence of available license exemptions/exceptions, the offeror shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate licenses or other approvals, if required, for exports of (including deemed exports) hardware, technical data, and software, or for the provision of technical assistance.
(2) The offeror shall be responsible for obtaining export licenses, if required, before utilizing non-U.S. persons (as defined in the ITAR and EAR, as applicable) in the performance of this contract, including instances where the work is to be performed on-site at any Government installation (whether in or outside the United States), where the foreign person will have access to export-controlled technologies, including technical data or software.
(3) The offeror shall be responsible for all regulatory record keeping requirements associated with the use of licenses and license exemptions/exceptions.
(4) The offeror shall appropriately mark all contract deliverables controlled by ITAR and/or EAR.
(5) The offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that the provisions of this section apply to its sub-contractors.
(6) The offeror will certify knowledge of and intended adherence to these requirements in the representations and certifications of the contract.
6.B.7. Subcontracting It is the policy of the Government to enable small business and small disadvantaged business concerns to be considered fairly as sub-contractors to contractors performing work or rendering services as prime contractors or sub-contractors under Government contracts and to assure that prime contractors and sub-contractors carry out this policy. Each offeror that submits a proposal that includes sub-contractors; is selected for funding (pending negotiations); and has proposed a funding level above the maximum cited in the FAR may be asked to submit a sub-contracting plan before award, in accordance with FAR 19.702(a) (1) and (2). The plan format is outlined in FAR 19.704. Offerors must declare teaming relationships in their proposals and must specify the type of teaming arrangement in place, including any exclusive teaming arrangements. IARPA neither promotes nor discourages the establishment of exclusive teaming agreements within offeror teams. Individuals or organizations associated with multiple teams must take care not to over-commit those resources being applied.
Page 35
6.B.8. Reporting Fiscal and management responsibility are important to the RAVEN Program. Although the number and types of reports will be specified in the award document, all performers will, at a minimum, provide the Contracting Office, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative and the RAVEN Program Manager with monthly technical reports and monthly financial reports. The reports shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the procedures contained in the award document and mutually agreed upon before award. Technical reports will describe technical highlights and accomplishments, priorities and plans, issues and concerns; will provide evaluation results; and will detail future plans. Financial reports will present an on-going financial profile of the project, including total project funding, funds invoiced, funds received, funds expended during the preceding month and planned expenditures over the remaining period. Additional reports and briefing material may also be required, as appropriate, to document progress in accomplishing program metrics. The performer will prepare a research report of their work by the last month of each phase (see section 1.C). The reports shall be delivered to the Contracting Agent, Contracting Officer Representative and the RAVEN Program Manager. The reports will include:
• Problem definition • Findings and approach • System design • Possible generalization(s) • Information on network capacity and computational capability necessary to run in real-
time • Information on performance limitations and potential mitigation • Anticipated path ahead • Final identification of all commercial, third-party, or proprietary hardware, software, or
technical data integrated into any deliverable and all applicable use restrictions.
6.B.9. System for Award Management (SAM) Selected offerors not already registered in the Systems for Award Management (SAM) may be required to register in SAM prior to any award under this BAA. Information on SAM registration is available at http://www.sam.gov.
6.B.10. Representations and Certifications Prospective offerors may be required to complete electronic representations and certifications at http://www.sam.gov. Successful offerors will be required to complete additional representations and certifications prior to award.
6.B.11. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) Unless using another approved electronic invoicing system, the performer may be required to submit invoices for payment directly via the Internet/WAWF at https://wawf.eb.mil. Registration to WAWF will be required prior to any award under this BAA.
Page 36
6.B.12. Lawful Use and Privacy Protection Measures All data gathered by performers must be obtained in accordance with U.S. laws and in compliance with the End User License Agreement, Copyright Laws, Terms of Service, and laws and policies regarding privacy protection of U.S. Persons. Before using such data, the performer must provide proof that the data was acquired in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.
SECTION 7: AGENCY CONTACTS Questions about administrative, technical or contractual issues must be submitted to the BAA email address at [email protected]. If e-mail is not available, fax questions to 301-851-7672, Attention: IARPA-BAA-15-12. All requests must include the name, e-mail address (if available), and phone number of a point of contact for the requested information. Do not send questions with proprietary content. A consolidated Question and Answer response will be publicly posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website (http://www.fbo.gov) and linked from the RAVEN program website (http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/raven/raven-proposers-day); no answers will go directly to the submitter. IARPA will accept questions about the BAA until February 12, 2016. Agency contact information:
ATTN: IARPA-BAA-15-12 Office of the Director of National Intelligence Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) Washington, DC 20511 Email: [email protected]
Program Manager: Dr. Carl E. McCants, Office of Safe and Secure Operations All e-mails must have the BAA number (IARPA-BAA-15-12) in the Subject Line.
Page 37
APPENDIX A
Academic Institution Acknowledgement Letter Template
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 38
-- Please Place on Official Letterhead --
<insert date> To: Contracting Officer
ODNI/IARPA Office of the Director of National Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20511
Subject: Academic Institution Acknowledgement Letter Reference: Executive Order 12333, As Amended, Para 2.7
This letter is to acknowledge that the undersigned is the responsible official of <insert name of the academic institution>, authorized to approve the contractual relationship in support of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity and this academic institution.
The undersigned further acknowledges that he/she is aware of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity’s proposed contractual relationship with <insert name of institution> through IARPA-BAA-15-12 and is hereby approved by the undersigned official, serving as the president, vice-president, chancellor, vice-chancellor, or provost of the institution.
________________________________ <Name> Date
<Position>
Page 39
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE COVER SHEET
for
VOLUME 1: Technical/Management Details
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 40
(1) BAA Number IARPA-BAA-15-12 (2) Lead Organization Submitting Proposal
(3) Type of Business, Selected Among the Following Categories: “Large Business”, “Small Disadvantaged Business”, “Other Small Business”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “Other Educational”, or “Other Nonprofit”
(4) Contractor’s Reference Number (if any)
(5) Other Team Members (if applicable) and Type of Business for Each
(6) Proposal Title (7) Technical Point of Contact to Include: Title, First Name, Last Name, Street Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, Fax (if available), Electronic Mail (if available)
(8) Administrative Point of Contact to Include: Title, First Name, Last Name, Street Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, Fax (if available), Electronic Mail (if available)
(9) Volume 1 (no more than 35 pages) Yes/No
(10) Restrictions on Intellectual property rights details provided in APPENDIX G format?
Yes/No
(11) OCI Waiver or Waiver Request [see Section 3.A.1] Included?
Yes/No
(11a) If No, is written certification included (APPENDIX D)?
Yes/No
(12) Are one or more U.S. Academic Institutions part of your team?
Yes/No
(12a) If Yes, are you including an Academic Institution Acknowledgement Statement with your proposal for each U.S. Academic Organization that is part of your team (APPENDIX A)?
Yes/No
(13) Total Funds Requested from IARPA and the Amount of Cost Share (if any)
$
(14) Date Proposal as Submitted.
Page 41
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE COVER SHEET
for
VOLUME 2: Cost Proposal
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 42
(1) BAA Number IARPA-BAA-15-12 (2) Lead organization submitting proposal (3) Type of Business, Selected Among the Following Categories: “Large Business”, “Small Disadvantaged Business”, “Other Small Business”, “HBCU”, “MI”, “Other Educational”, or “Other Nonprofit”
(4) Contractor’s Reference Number (if any) (5) Other Team Members (if applicable) and Type of Business for Each
(6) Proposal Title (7) Technical Point of Contact to Include: Title, First Name, Last Name, Street Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, Fax (if available), Electronic Mail (if available)
(8) Administrative Point of Contact to Include: Title, First Name, Last Name, Street Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, Fax (if available), Electronic Mail (if available)
(9) Contract type/award Instrument Requested: specify
(10) Place(s) and Period(s) of Performance (11) Total Proposed Cost Separated by Basic Award and Option(s) (if any)
(12) Name, Address, Telephone Number of the Offeror’s Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Administration Office or Equivalent Cognizant Contract Administration Entity, if Known
(13) Name, Address, Telephone Number of the Offeror’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Audit Office or Equivalent Cognizant Contract Audit Entity, if Known
(14) Date Proposal was Prepared (15) DUNS Number (16) TIN Number (17) CAGE Code (18) Proposal Validity Period [minimum of 180 days]
(19) Cost Summaries Provided (APPENDIX E and APPENDIX F)
(20) Size of Business in accordance with NAICS Code 541712
Page 43
APPENDIX D
Letter Template
For
Organizational Conflicts of Interest Certification Letter Template
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 44
(Month DD, YYYY) Office of the Director of National Intelligence Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) Washington, DC 20511 ATTN: Dr. Carl E. McCants Subject: OCI Certification Reference: RAVEN IARPA-BAA-15-12, (Insert assigned proposal ID#, if received) Dear Dr. McCants: In accordance with IARPA Broad Agency Announcement IARPA-BAA-15-12, Section 3.A.1, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI), and on behalf of _______ (offeror name), I certify that neither _______________ (offeror name) nor any of our subcontractor teammates has as a potential conflict of interest, real or perceived, as it pertains to the RAVEN program. If you have any questions, or need any additional information, please contact (Insert name of contact) at (Insert phone number) or (Insert e-mail address). Sincerely, (Insert organization name) (Must be signed by an official that has the authority to bind the organization) (Insert signature) (Insert name of signatory) (Insert title of signatory)
Page 45
APPENDIX E
Sample Prime Contractor Cost Element Sheet
For
VOLUME 2: Cost Proposal
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 46
PRIME CONTRACTOR COST ELEMENT SHEET [SAMPLE]
Complete a Cost Element Sheet for the Base Period and each Option Period
COST ELEMENT BASE RATE AMT DIRECT LABOR (List each labor category separately. Identify Key Personnel by name.)
# of Hours $ $
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $ FRINGE BENEFITS $ % $ TOTAL LABOR OVERHEAD $ % $ SUBCONTRACTORS, IOTS, CONSULTANTS (List separately. See below table.)
$
MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT (List each material and equipment item separately.)
Quantity $ unit price $
SOFTWARE & INTELLECTUAL Property (List separately. See table below.)
$ $ $
TOTAL MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT $
MATERIAL OVERHEAD $ % $ TRAVEL (List each trip separately.) # of travelers $ price per traveler $ TOTAL TRAVEL $ OTHER DIRECT COSTS (List each item separately.)
Quantity $ unit price $
TOTAL ODCs $ G&A $ % $ SUBTOTAL COSTS $ COST OF MONEY $ % $ TOTAL COST $ PROFIT/FEE $ % $ TOTAL PRICE/COST $ GOVERNMENT SHARE, IF APPLICABLE $ RECIPIENT SHARE, IF APPLICABLE $
SUBCONTRACTORS/INTERORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFERS (IOT) & CONSULTANTS PRICE SUMMARY
A B C D E F SUBCONTRACTOR
IOT & CONSULTANT
NAME
SOW TASKS PERFORMED
*
TYPE OF AWARD
SUBCONTRACTOR, IOT &
CONSULTANT QUOTED PRICE
COST PROPOSED BY PRIME FOR THE SUBCONTRACTOR,
IOT & CONSULTANT
DIFFERENCE (Column D - Column
E) IF 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.
Page 47
Software and Intellectual Property Costs
Item Cost Date of Expiration (List)
NOTE: Educational institutions and non-profit organizations as defined in FAR part 31.3 and 31.7, respectively, at the prime and subcontractor level may deviate from the cost template in APPENDIX E and APPENDIX F when estimating the direct labor portion of the proposal to allow for OMB guided accounting methods that are used by their institutions. The methodology must be clear and provide sufficient detail to substantiate proposed labor costs. For example, each labor category must be listed separately; identify key personnel, and provide hours/rates or salaries and percentage of time allocated to the project.
Page 48
APPENDIX F
Sample Subcontractor Cost Element Sheet
For
VOLUME 2: Cost Proposal
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 49
SUBCONTRACTOR COST ELEMENT SHEET [SAMPLE]
Complete a Cost Element Sheet for each applicable period
COST ELEMENT BASE BURDENED
RATE AMT DIRECT LABOR (List each labor category separately. Identify Key Personnel by name.) # of Hours $ $ TOTAL DIRECT LABOR
$
SUBCONTRACTORS, IOTS, CONSULTANTS
$
MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT (List each material and equipment item separately.) Quantity $ unit price $ TOTAL MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT
$
TRAVEL (List each trip separately) # of travelers $ price per traveler $
TOTAL TRAVEL
$ OTHER DIRECT COSTS (List each item separately.) Quantity $ unit price $ TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
$
TOTAL PRICE/COST
$
Software and Intellectual Property Costs
Item Cost Date of Expiration (List)
NOTE: Educational institutions and non-profit organizations as defined in FAR part 31.3 and 31.7, respectively, at the prime and subcontractor level may deviate from the cost template in APPENDIX E and APPENDIX F when estimating the direct labor portion of the proposal to allow for OMB guided accounting methods that are used by their institutions. The methodology must be clear and provide sufficient detail to substantiate proposed labor costs. For example, each labor category must be listed separately; identify key personnel, and provide hours/rates or salaries and percentage of time allocated to the project.
Page 50
APPENDIX G
Restrictions on Intellectual Property Rights
For
VOLUME 1: Technical and Management Proposal
(OPTIONAL)
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 51
APPENDIX G
Noncommercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)
NONCOMMERCIAL ITEMS
Technical Data, Computer Software To be
Furnished With Restrictions
Basis for Assertion Asserted Rights Category
Name of Person Asserting Restrictions
(LIST) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)
Additional information required by BAA sections 4.B.1.3.D, 4.B.1.3.E, and 6.B.2.A: Description of restrictions on Government’s ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data, computer software, and deliverables incorporating technical data and computer software listed above:
Potential cost to the Government to acquire GPR in all deliverables incorporating the technical data and computer software listed above: Intended use of the technical data and computer software listed above in the conduct of the proposed research:
Commercial Items (Technical Data and Computer Software)
COMMERCIAL ITEMS Technical Data,
Computer Software To be Furnished With
Restrictions
Basis for Assertion
Asserted Rights Category
Name of Person Asserting Restrictions
(LIST) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)
Additional information required by BAA sections 4.B.1.3.D, 4.B.1.3.E, and 6.B.2.B:
Page 52
Patents
PATENTS
Patent number (or application
number) Patent name Inventor name(s) Patent owner(s)
(LIST) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)
Additional information required by BAA sections 4.B.1.3.D, 4.B.1.3.E, and 6.B.2.C:
Page 53
APPENDIX H
Templates for Three Chart Summary of the Proposal
For
VOLUME 1: Technical and Management Proposal; Sections 2 and 4
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 54
Page 55
APPENDIX I
Available Government X-Ray Beam Line Facilities
For
VOLUME 1: Technical and Management Proposal
(OPTIONAL)
IARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
RAVEN
(IARPA-BAA-15-12)
Page 56
IARPA is aware of limited access to high-flux x-ray beams. Each of the facilities listed below provide capabilities not available commercially. See Section 1.E for details on how to include accessing the capabilities available at one or more of these facilities – if desired – within a proposal. I.1 Argonne National Laboratory Advanced Photon Source (APS) The Advanced Photon Source is an Office of Science User Facility operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory. The Advanced Photon Source is a synchrotron light source that produces high-energy, high-brightness x-ray beams. The source is optimized to put large quantities of high-energy photons into a very small area in a very short time. The x-ray beam is customized at each beamline to meet particular needs. With more than 60 beamlines already operational, and more under development, the APS offers an exceptionally broad range of experimental conditions at a single facility. It is located at Argonne National Laboratory, 30 miles southwest of Chicago, Illinois. Each beamline at the APS offers a unique combination of capabilities, but some of the main considerations are energy range and tunability, special sample environments, time structures, and beam size. The following are some highlights.
• The energies used range from relatively "soft" x-rays (3-5 keV) to "hard" x-rays at 100 keV and sometimes higher. At many beamlines, the energy can be tuned with relative ease.
• Samples can be examined under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure, and several facilities are available for samples requiring special handling (e.g., biohazards, radioactive samples).
• Many experiments involve timing, through correlation with a pulsed laser or with the time structure of the x-ray pulses, for example. In the typical operating mode, the x-rays come in evenly spaced bunches or pulses, with 0.31 mA per pulse and 11.37 nanoseconds between pulses.
• Some beamlines employ additional optics to narrow the already tight beam into even smaller spots, offering spatial resolution into the 50-nm range.9
I.2 Brookhaven National Laboratory National Synchrotron Line Source II (NSLS II) Brookhaven National Laboratory is a multipurpose research institution funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. National Synchrotron Light Source II is a medium energy (3.0 GeV) electron storage ring designed to deliver photons with high average spectral brightness exceeding 1021 ph/s in the 2 – 10 keV energy range and a flux density exceeding 1015 ph/s in all spectral ranges. This performance requires the storage ring to support a very high-current electron beam (I = 500 mA) with a very small horizontal (down to 0.5 nm-rad) and vertical (8 pm-rad) emittance. The electron beam will be stable in its position (<10% of its size), angle (<10% of its divergence), dimensions (<10%), and intensity (±0.5% variation). 9 https://www1.aps.anl.gov/Users-Information/Getting-Started/Introduction-to-APS.
Page 57
The NSLS-II radiation sources span a very wide spectral range, from the far infrared (down to 0.1 eV) to the very hard x-ray region (>300 keV). This is achieved by a combination of bending magnets, three-pole wigglers, and insertion device (ID) sources The NSLS-II storage ring lattice consists of 30 double-bend achromat (DBA) cells that will accommodate at least 58 beamlines for user experiments, distributed by type of source as follows:
• 15 low-beta ID straights for undulators or superconducting wigglers • 12 high-beta ID straights for either undulators or damping wigglers • 31 BM ports providing broadband sources covering the IR, VUV, and soft x-ray ranges.
Any of these ports can alternatively be replaced by a 3PW port covering the hard x-ray range.
• 4 BM ports on large gap (90 mm) dipoles for very far-IR Multiple IDs may be installed in a single straight section for additional beamline capacity. The NSLS-II ring circumference is 792 m. Beamlines up to 72 m long can be built within the ring building in sectors with the extended experimental floor width, as compared to 66 m long beamlines in sectors with the standard floor width.10 I.3 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) and Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) I.3.1 Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) The Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL), a directorate of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC), is an Office of Science User Facility operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Stanford University, located in Menlo Park, California. With the high brightness of SPEAR3 (Stanford Positron Electron Asymmetric Ring #3), imaging techniques over a wide range of length scales are being developed and added to the capabilities being made available to users, for various research projects in fields including biological, environmental, and materials science. Focused beams using mirrors, capillaries, and apertures are used to create x-ray beam sizes over a wide range, from a few microns to a few hundred microns. These techniques are used at beam lines 2-3, 10-2 and 14-3 to look at where different elements are located in a wide variety of samples, from soils, plants, tissue samples to ancient Greek artifacts. The focused beams not only can determine what elements are present in the sample, but also what the chemistry is of the element is at specific locations. A microscope employing zone plates to focus the beam is under development and will soon provide 30 nm beams to study properties of magnetic domains at Beam Line 13-1. Not only can x-rays be focused to probe materials in a small spot, but they are being used in an actual x-ray microscope, at Beam Line 6-2, that provides 2- and 3-dimensional images in real space at 30 nm resolution, showing objects ranging from biomaterials such as bones and teeth to advanced fuel cell materials and nanostructures. Rounding out SSRL's imaging capabilities is the lensless imaging 10 https://www.bnl.gov/ps/accelerator/.
Page 58
station at Beam Line 13-3, which uses the two-dimensional pattern of soft x-rays scattered from the sample to image nanostructures at resolutions better than 30 nm. Beam Line 2-3 – Hard-x-ray microprobe imaging, spectroscopy, diffraction and tomography The hard x-ray imaging station at BL 2-3 is a dedicated imaging facility which has the ability to perform a wide series of experiments, including x-ray fluorescence imaging, micro-spectroscopy (i.e. micro-XANES and micro-EXAFS), spectroscopic imaging (mapping an elemental distribution at several energies within the absorption edge of an element), micro-diffraction, and micro-tomography. The focused x-ray beam is acquired using Kirkpatrick-Baez (K-B) mirrors directly imaging the bending magnet source, and results in a beam size of approximately 2 x 2 microns and photon fluxes in the mid 108 photons/second in the focused spot with SPEAR current at 200mA. The energy range of the beam line optics at BL 2-3 covers from 5-23 keV, with detection of fluorescent x-rays as low as Si. Sample sizes are limited due to the travel range of the high-resolution sample positioner, which is 24 mm in the vertical and horizontal. Beam Line 6-2c – Transmission X-ray microscope (TXM) This full-field hard x-ray microscope is capable of imaging from 4-14 keV, with resolution up to 30 nm using micro zone plates. The field of view is 30 microns, but raster scanning can extend this to examine a wider range with full resolution. The incoming beam is focused using a capillary condenser, forming hollow cone illumination. It is capable of Zernike phase contrast at both 5.4 keV and 8 keV, enabling imaging of lower-absorption biological materials, and of 3D tomography. It also has a fluorescence detector for confirming elemental composition within a subset (~3 micron diameter) of the field of view. Beam Line 13-3 – Coherent Scattering and Lensless Imaging The soft x-ray (150 - 1200 eV) coherent scattering beamline is capable of X-ray Fourier Transform Holography (FTH) and resonant Coherent Diffraction Imaging (CDI) with a flux of 2 x 107 photons s-1um-2 at the shortest transverse coherence of 3 um in a spot size of 25 x 250 um on the sample. The distance between the sample and the in-vacuum backside-illuminated CCD detector can be adjusted from 50 to 400 mm. The detector consists of 1340 x 1300 pixels of 20 um. Nanoscale imaging at cryogenic temperatures (15 - 300 K) and the application of magnetic fields up to 0.1 T are also available. Several novel lensless imaging techniques such as HERALDO and reference guided phase retrieval have been demonstrated at this beamline. With the use of a mobile laser hutch, optical pump x-ray probe experiments with picosecond time resolution are possible.11 I.3.2 Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS)
11 http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/content/science/ssrl-imaging-group.
Page 59
LCLS creates X-ray pulses a billion times brighter than previously available at synchrotrons. Pulses are fired about 120 pulses per second, each one lasting just quadrillionths of a second, or "femtoseconds" -- a timescale at which the motion of atoms can be seen and tracked. X-rays are delivered to any of six specialized experimental stations, and in some cases to multiple stations simultaneously. Each station has a dedicated team of scientists and support staff who spearhead R&D efforts, engage in innovative research and assist users with experiments.12 Coherent X-Ray Imaging (CXI) Station The CXI instrument makes use of the unique brilliant hard X-ray pulses from LCLS to perform a wide variety of experiments utilizing various techniques. The primary capability of CXI is to make use of the high peak power of the focused x-ray beam using the “diffraction-before-destruction” method. This technique prevents damage to a sample during the measurement by performing the measurement faster than the damage or destruction process with ultrashort pulses. This is particular advantageous for biological samples that suffer from electronic and structural damage during long continuous exposures to x-rays. While designed originally to image single sub-micron particles using Coherent Diffractive Imaging (CDI) techniques, the CXI instrument consists of a highly flexible instrumentation suite to make use of hard x-rays primarily in a vacuum sample environment. It is available for Serial Femtosecond Crystallography (SFX) measurements capable of determining the structure of biomolecules using nanocrystals. It is also suitable for any forward scattering experiment requiring or benefiting from a vacuum sample environment. A variety of tools and devices have been developed that allow CXI to make use of other techniques such as X-ray Emission Spectroscopy, back-scattering, small and wide angle scattering, ion and electron time of flight spectroscopy. A flexible pump laser system is available for time-resolved experiments in the femtosecond time scale. CXI is available for any scientific field requiring use of the LCLS beam, including structural biology, material science, materials in extreme conditions, atomic molecular and optical physics, chemistry, soft condensed matter and high field x-ray science. Samples can be introduced to the x-ray beam either fixed on targets or using a particle injector that can deliver free-standing particles or samples in a liquid jet to the beam. Experiments at atmospheric pressure are possible under certain limited circumstances. High quality focusing optics are available to generate three foci (10, 1 and 0.1 micron). The CXI instrument operates primarily in the 5-11 keV range with capabilities for operation under reduced performance above 11 keV with use of the harmonics of the beam. The near complete transverse coherence of the LCLS beam is ideal for experiments requiring a coherent beam and could allow single particles to be imaged at high resolution while the short pulse duration will limit radiation damage during the measurement.13
12 https://portal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/aboutlcls/Pages/About-LCLS.asp. 13 https://portal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/instruments/CXI/Pages/default.aspx.
