Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Broad Agency Announcement
Broad Agency Announcement
Dates
o Proposers Day: 30 January 2017, Arlington, VA
o Posting Date: 15 February 2017
o Abstract Due: 01 March 2017, 12:00 noon (Eastern)
o Questions Due: 13 March 2017
o Proposal Due *: 3 April 2017, 12:00 noon (Eastern)
Concise description of the funding opportunity – The goal of OFFSET is the design,
development, and demonstration of a swarm system architecture – encoded in a realistic
game-based environment and embodied in physical swarm autonomous platforms – to
advance the innovation, interaction, and integration of novel swarm tactics.
Agency contact
o Points of Contact
The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:
OFFSET@darpa.mil
A. Program Vision
Figure 2: OFFSET Swarm Tactics Framework. The conventional bottom-up approach (left) leaves a gap between warfighter
needs and the swarm tactics developed, whereas the swarm tactics-focused top-down approach (right) addresses warfighter
needs as the driver of advances in swarm capabilities.
Considering the hierarchical framework depicted in Figure 2, the warfighter’s needs are directly
dictated by the swarm mission, characterized by high-level operational objectives to be achieved
by combined employment of swarm systems and associated human teammates. In contrast, swarm
algorithms form the foundation of simple functions or “skills” that the swarm is capable of
executing collectively. While these functions (e.g., maneuver forward, measure signal strength,
sense obstacles) may not individually offer actionable operational value, the combination of these
swarm algorithms into swarm primitives, or collective behaviors, can represent more integrated
swarm capabilities. For example, such swarm primitives may encode behaviors to locate points of
interest in an area, identify ingress points to a building, or define and secure a perimeter.
B. Program Description
The goal of OFFSET is the design, development, and demonstration of a swarm system
architecture – encoded in a realistic game-based environment and embodied in physical swarm
autonomous platforms – to advance the innovation, interaction, and integration of novel swarm
tactics.
If successful, OFFSET will produce an advanced swarm system, comprising a demonstrated
swarm software architecture with implementation of swarm tactics and advanced swarm
interfaces; a physical swarm system testbed for substantive experimentation and
operationalization; and a robust developer and user community for enduring engagement in the
advancement of swarm system capabilities. The insights derived from the OFFSET program will
inform not only the technological trade spaces of swarm systems design, but also and more
broadly, the scalability of manned-unmanned teaming constructs, test and evaluation for
autonomous systems, and open system architectures for distributed, networked capabilities.
B.1. Core Elements of the OFFSET Swarm System
The OFFSET Swarm System is centered on the synergistic intersection (as illustrated in Figure 3)
of discovering new swarm tactics and insights from their employment (innovation), creating new
ways to immerse the swarm operator with rich and intuitive access (interaction), and realizing
these rapidly developing swarm capabilities in physical swarm systems (integration).
Of interest for OFFSET are proposals detailing innovative and visionary solutions which expand
and enhance the concepts for the envisioned core elements of the OFFSET swarm system
described in the following sections.
B.1.a. Innovating Swarm Tactics: A Swarm Tactics Exchange
A principal pillar of OFFSET is the innovation of swarm tactics, leveraging an extensible software
architecture implemented in a game-based environment based on industry-standard, open-source
game engines (e.g., Unity 3D, Unreal). Such an environment offers a virtual yet realistic world in
which relevant operational scenarios, such as urban operations, can be extensively explored and
expanded.
OFFSET envisions the ideation of novel swarm tactics via two complementary avenues, both
offering relevant paths towards near-term and future swarm tactics-based capabilities:
Implement swarm tactics comprising only physically realizable components, that is, utilize
only existing and/or maturing sensors, datatypes, embedded computing and network
resources, as well as experimentally demonstrated swarm algorithms or swarm primitives
Design swarm tactics using synthetic swarm components, that is, leverage access to data
only available within the game environment to fabricate and/or enable futuristic or
emerging swarm capabilities
The former approach captures and challenges existing capabilities to lead to potential discovery of
new swarm tactics. Examples of existing state-of-the-art technologies might include LIDAR,
electro-optical, infrared vision sensors; occupancy grid-based decomposition of 3D environments;
collision-free navigation and multi-robot path-planning algorithms; cooperative simultaneous
localization and mapping (SLAM) solutions.
Alternatively, the latter approach illuminates and potentially identifies those components which
may dramatically impact future swarm capabilities. Examples of notional synthetic technologies
that could be encoded and simulated purely within the virtual game environment might include
The three operational contexts highlight the mission-oriented perspectives of interest to OFFSET,
where capabilities of the collective swarm are not defined by system or platform specifications but
rather by their ability to execute one or more swarm tactics in support of the mission.
Mission Duration describes the time during which the swarm is actively employed,
potentially including transit and deployment times.
Swarm Size describes the desired number of combined total air and/or ground agents
involved in the current mission.
In conjunction with proposed narrative concepts of deployment and concepts of employment of
the swarm systems, some operational analysis should be presented to preliminarily justify the
proposed platform procurement and/or fabrication schedule. A proposed mix of types (fixed-wing,
multi-rotor, ground), unit costs, along with technical design and/or performance specifications
would be appropriate.
The capability-based experimentation activities envisioned for OFFSET (see Section I.C.1)
highlight the need to physically realize swarm technologies which can serve to help inform the
design and/or refinement of swarm tactics. For example, the considerations imposed by real
communication constraints (e.g., intermittent connectivity, packet delays), or by uncertain
hardware failure models (e.g., faulty sensors, attrition of platforms), or by limitations in platforms
(e.g., endurance, mobility) may be used to design more capable, more resilient, and/or more
efficient swarm tactics instances.
Note that OFFSET is not a platform development program. Proposals which devote significant
resources on the design, prototyping, and/or development of new mobile robot platforms, outside
of (a) modifications or refurbishments of existing platforms, or (b) procurement of cost-effective
commercial-off-the-shelf platforms, will be considered nonresponsive to this Broad Agency
Announcement.
B.2. Defining the Swarm Systems Architecture
The proposed Swarm System Architecture, in addition to comprising the core elements highlighted
in previous sections, should further include specification of the two underlying architectures,
namely that of the individual agent and of the collective swarm.
The agent architecture should define an extensible software framework with which the individual
autonomous system can perceive, decide, and act using local sensing, computation, and actuation
resources. Open system architectures [11] will maximize modularity and extensibility, especially
as both OFFSET and aligned commercial sectors accelerate and yield new productized
technologies in computation, sensing, manipulation, communication, mobility, power, platform,
and local agent mission management. The agent system architecture should anticipate
incorporating these latest advances in sensing and/or computing, in tandem with the addition of
novel swarm tactics over the course of the OFFSET program. Numerous robotic middleware
capabilities, such as the Robot Operating System (ROS), have greatly facilitated the rapid rise and
communal development of such agent architectures, and may be leveraged in proposed efforts to
capitalize on the community-driven wealth of single-robot autonomous capabilities. Efforts that
build upon proven open architectures such as ROS-based agent architectures will likely accelerate
development and increase interoperability.
The software implementation of the agent architecture will inherently facilitate rapid and modular
development of collaborative autonomy algorithms to accelerate implementing the underlying
needs of swarm tactics in the form of plug-in modules for coordination. Similarly, the agent
architecture should have the ability to create and connect multiple software-in-the-loop simulation
a community-fostering forum (e.g., swarm tactics exchange) for curation of swarm tactics
and an automated workflow for their assessment
immersive interactive modalities for intuitive and robust teams of humans and swarm
systems
aggressive experimentation and systems integration efforts for realizing swarm capabilities
agile software systems engineering and federated open architectures (e.g., DevOps)
Figure 4: OFFSET Program Goals and Metrics, emphasizing key advances and desired technology outcomes relevant to swarm
autonomy and human-swarm teaming capabilities
C. Program Structure
The duration of each Swarm Sprint is expected to be 6-9 months, to nominally include an option
period to facilitate in-depth integration activities, nominally aligned (as dictated by the Sprint
Topic) with the capability-based experiments for close interaction with the Swarm Systems
Integrators to demonstrate the proposed component and integrated technologies.
C.1. OFFSET Capability-Based Experimentation
A key component of the OFFSET program relies not only on the rapid generation of swarm tactics
in game-based environments, but also on the realization, that is, the deployment and
demonstration, of these developed swarm capabilities on physical swarm systems. As such,
OFFSET Swarm System Architecture must be integrated and demonstrated in capability-based
experiments (CBEs) to occur every six months at DARPA-designated test sites.
The intent of these capability-based experiments is to iteratively demonstrate and deliver minimum
viable products, that is, it is more important to the Government to provide integrated functional
capabilities, albeit incremental, at each capability-based experiment and interim integration
milestones, rather than to present non-working component features. The goal is to deliver potential
frequent tech off-ramps, which could manifest in the form of integration in ongoing warfighter
assessment exercises, spin-off technology transition efforts, and/or Service-led developmental
testing and evaluation activities.
The operational scenarios of interest, referred to as OFFSET Swarm Vignettes, will be designed
and set forth in advance of each capability-based experiment, progressively increasing in
complexity. An example of the small-scope vignette is a focus on isolating an urban objective,
which will scale to a notional large-scope vignette of seizing key urban terrain [13] [14] .
Representative urban operational environments, tactical objectives, and Mission, Enemy, Terrain
and Weather, Troops and Support Available, Time available, Civil Considerations (METT-TC)
D. OFFSET Deliverables
Summarized and described below is a list of deliverables to be proposed by the Swarm Systems
Integrator(s) for the OFFSET program.
OFFSET Deliverables Checklist At-a-Glance
1. Swarm Systems Architecture Design Document
2. Sprint Integration Plan
3. Experimentation Plan
4. Swarm Systems Platforms and Infrastructure Hardware
5. Software Development Kit and Documentation (Developers, Users)
6. Presentations, Technical Papers
7. Monthly Progress Reports
8. Final Report
Swarm Systems Architecture Design Document: Initial design documentation for each
vignette shall be presented within one month after the kick off meeting for that vignette
with an initial design document presented six months after initial contract award for
the Swarm Systems Integrator. The architecture documentation shall describe the
system in sufficient detail to permit an engineer to correctly implement the system
without consulting the system designer. The algorithm documentation shall describe
the algorithms in sufficient detail to permit a software engineer to correctly code the
algorithms without consulting the algorithm designer.
Swarm Systems Hardware and Documentation: At the conclusion of the final vignette, the
complete prototype system hardware shall be delivered. The delivered system shall be
the same fully functional system used to perform the final capability based
Swarm Systems Software, Development Kit, and Documentation: All computer software
developed or delivered under the OFFSET program must be delivered as source and as
object (executable) code. Include the source listings and source code for the target
computer systems. Delivered software under this effort is to be completely
maintainable and modifiable with no reliance on any non-delivered computer programs
or documentation. For all computer software purchased or licensed for use as a
component of the software to be delivered, arrangements shall be made for licensing
and maintenance agreements to be transferred to the Government at no additional cost
upon the completion of the performer’s work under any contract awarded under this
BAA.
Note that it is desired that newly created noncommercial software, not proprietary, be
provided as a deliverable to the Government with Unlimited Rights (procurement
contract) or, at a minimum, with Government Purpose Rights (Other Transaction
Agreement), as described in Section IV.B.4.e.
Documentation shall be provided within one month after the end of each vignette
documenting source code, hardware description language specifications, system
diagrams, and all other data necessary to maintain and to produce copies of the
software. Documentation shall provide sufficient information for a tool developer to
create applications that interface with this architecture.
Presentations and Technical Papers: Final presentations shall be submitted within one
month after each review, and draft presentations shall be submitted one week prior to
the review. Technical papers intended for public release or presentation at conferences,
symposiums, or other venues shall be submitted to DARPA at least one month prior to
the submittal date.
Monthly Progress Reports: Monthly reports should detail the technical and programmatic
accomplishments for the previous month as well as the plans for the next sixty days.
Additionally, the monthly report should provide financial status of the program to
include current month’s financials, program to date financials, and planned financials
for the remainder of the program.
Final Report: A final report should be submitted for each vignette that summarizes the
effort conducted and provide any lessons learned during the development of the
OFFSET technology program.
A list of deliverables expected for Swarm Sprinters will be released in subsequent solicitations
relevant to the given interests for the specific sprint.
DARPA intends to award up to two Swarm System Integrators. The amount of resources made
available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability
of funds.
The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals
received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers.
The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be
necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options.
Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only
portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a
proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to
fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.
The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it
makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not
limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.4). The Government reserves the
right to remove proposals from award consideration, should the parties fail to reach agreement on
award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, or the proposer fails to provide
requested additional information in a timely manner. Proposals identified for negotiation may
result in a procurement contract, cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending upon the
nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the
research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.
Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to
consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated
with Other Transactions, consult www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-
management#OtherTransactions.
In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award
instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and
conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it
determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of
disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are
unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a
requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program.
For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.
B. Fundamental Research
It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted
to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines
fundamental research as follows:
As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described
herein may be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research and proposers not
intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research may present a high likelihood
of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that
are unique and critical to defense. Based on the nature of the performer and the nature of the work,
the Government anticipates that some awards will include restrictions on the resultant research
that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or
results relative to the program.
Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included
in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results
of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to
negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. Appropriate clauses will be included
in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other
restrictions, as appropriate. This clause can be found at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-
baa.
For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the
awardee is restricted research, a subawardee may be conducting fundamental research. In those
cases, it is the awardee’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subawardee’s effort is
fundamental research
A. Eligible Applicants
All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that
shall be considered by DARPA. Please note that FFRDC, Government entity, and foreign
participation is welcomed; however, some limitations may apply. Please see below.
For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and
information systems processing security requirements are in place and at
the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated
Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and
any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated
prior to submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found
at http://www.dss.mil.
If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any DARPA office(s), the
proposal must include:
Government Procedures
In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation
plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether
it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI
mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the BAA evaluation criteria
and funding availability.
The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the
Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan.
If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide
the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional
information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation
plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.
Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable
statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where
there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed
research and development effort.
For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype,
see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.
This document contains all information required to submit a response to this solicitation. No
additional forms, kits, or other materials are needed except as referenced herein. No request for
proposals (RFP) or additional solicitations regarding this opportunity will be issued, nor is
additional information available except as provided at the Federal Business Opportunities website
(https://www.fbo.gov) or referenced herein. For proposers requesting access to the security
classification guide, please fill out DARPA Form 105 (Attachment 7) and send to the BAA
mailbox (OFFSET@darpa.mil).
All submissions, including abstracts and proposals must be written in English with formatting
specifications detailed below. Copies of all documents submitted must be clearly labeled with
the DARPA BAA number, proposer organization, and proposal title/proposal short title.
B.1. Abstracts
Proposers are strongly encouraged to submit an abstract in advance of a proposal to minimize
effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing an out-of-scope proposal. The abstract
provides a synopsis of the proposed project.
DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea.
If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide
feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s
response to the abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all full
proposals submitted using the evaluation criteria without regard to any comments resulting from
an abstract.
Abstract Format: Abstracts shall not exceed a maximum of six (6) pages, inclusive of figures,
tables, and charts, to include a coversheet, four (4) pages for technical approach, and one (1) for
capabilities and management plan. Additionally, all abstracts should provide one (1) executive
summary slide as detailed below.
B.2. Proposals
All complete proposal packages must include the parts listed below. The following templates,
which contain proposal content descriptions and instructions have been provided as attachments
to the BAA posted at www.fbo.gov and www.grants.gov. Use of these templates is mandatory
for all proposal submissions to this BAA.
o Attachment 1: Proposal Template Slides
Slide 1: Executive Summary
Slide 2: Concept
Slide 3: Cost Summary by Phase
Slide 4: Cost Summary by Task
o Attachment 2: Level of Effort (LOE) Table Template
o Attachment 3: Proposal Template – Milestones and Deliverables Summary Table
o Attachment 4: Proposal Template – Technical and Management Volume
o Attachment 5: Proposal Template – Cost Volume
o Attachment 6: Proposal Template – Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
o Attachment 7: DARPA Form 105 – SCG Request Form
The proposal shall be delivered in two volumes, Volume I – Technical and Management
Proposal and Volume II – Cost Proposal.
The proposal shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page (where a “page” is
8-1/2 by 11 inches with type not smaller than 12-point (charts may use smaller font), margins not
smaller than 1 inch, and line spacing not smaller than single spaced. Fold-outs up to 11 by 17
inches may be used, but will be counted as two pages. All submissions must be in English. The
total page count for Proposal Volume I, (Technical and Management Proposal) is 25 pages.
Proposals not meeting the format described in this BAA may not be reviewed.
Ensure that each section provides a detailed discussion of proposed work to enable an in-depth
review of specific technical and managerial issues relevant to that section. Specific attention must
be given to addressing both risk and payoff of the proposed work that make it desirable to DARPA
NOTE: Non-conforming submissions that do not follow the instructions herein may be
rejected without further review.
The cost proposal should include a working spreadsheet file (.xls or equivalent format) that
provides formula traceability among all components of the cost proposal. The spreadsheet file
should be included as a separate component of the full proposal package. Costs must be traceable
between the prime and subcontractors/consultants, as well as between the cost proposal and the
SOW.
i. Cover Sheet:
All proposers, including FFRDCs, must submit the following:
(1) BAA number (HR001117S0011)
(2) Technical area
(3) Lead organization name
(4) Type of organization, selected among the following categories:
Large Business Small Disadvantaged Business Other Small Business
HBCU Minority Institution Other Educational
Other Nonprofit
(5) Proposer’s reference number (if any)
(6) Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each
(7) Proposal title
(8) Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail
(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail
(10) Total funds requested from DARPA separated by basic award and option(s) (if
any), and the amount of cost share (if any)
(11) Award instrument requested: procurement contract (specify type), cooperative
agreement, or Other Transaction
(12) Proposal validity period (minimum 180 days)
(13) Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number
(14) Taxpayer identification number
The Government strongly encourages that tables included in the cost proposal also
be provided in an editable (e.g., MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact
to allow traceability of the cost proposal numbers across the prime and
subcontractors.
Indirect Costs: Identify all indirect cost rates (such as fringe benefits,
labor overhead, material overhead, G&A, etc.) and the basis for each.
milestone description,
completion criteria,
due date, and
payment/funding schedule (to include, if cost share is proposed, awardee
and Government share amounts).
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), to include For Official Use Only (FOUO)
Information, generated and/or provided under this BAA shall be safeguarded and
marked as specified in DoD Manual 5200.01 Volume 4, DoD Information Security
Program.
When information is controlled by the United States Munitions List (USML), the
contractor must abide by the International Traffic Arms Regulation (ITAR)
requirements.
iii. Both Classified and Unclassified Submissions
For a proposal that includes both classified and unclassified information, the proposal
may be separated into an unclassified portion and a classified portion. The proposal
should include as much information as possible in the unclassified portion and use
the classified portion ONLY for classified information. The unclassified portion can
be submitted through the DARPA BAA Website, per the instructions in Section
IV.B.5.b, below. The classified portion must be provided separately – please e-mail
the BAA mailbox (OFFSET@darpa.mil) requesting submission instructions from the
Technical Office PSO.
The full text of the above solicitation provision and contract clauses can be found at
http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa#NPRPAC.
Compliance with the above requirements includes the mandate for proposers to implement the
security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Special Publication (SP) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal
Information Systems and Organizations” (see https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-171r1) that
are in effect at the time the BAA is issued, or as authorized by the Contracting Officer, not later
than December 31, 2017.
B.4.d. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 749d)/FAR 39.2
All electronic and information technology acquired or created through this BAA must satisfy the
accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C § 794d)/FAR 39.2.
Technical Data
Summary of
Computer Name of Person
Intended Use in Basis for Asserted Rights
Asserting
Software to be Assertion Category
the Conduct of Restrictions
Furnished with
the Research
Restrictions
All proposers must be registered in SAM unless exempt per FAR 4.1102. FAR 52.204-7,
“System for Award Management” and FAR 52.204-13, “System for Award Management
Maintenance” are incorporated into this BAA. See www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa
for further information.
When utilizing the DARPA BAA Submission website (https://baa.darpa.mil/), as described below
in Section IV.B.5.a and IV.B.5.b, a control number will be provided at the conclusion of the
submission process. This control number should be used in all further correspondence regarding
your abstract/proposal submission. DARPA will acknowledge receipt of all submissions. If no
Submissions will not be returned. An electronic copy of each submission received will be retained
at DARPA and all other non-required copies destroyed. A certification of destruction may be
requested, provided the formal request is received by DARPA within 5 days after notification that
a proposal was not selected.
Note: Proposers submitting an abstract or full proposal via the DARPA BAA Submission site
MUST click the “Finalize” button with sufficient time for the upload to complete prior to the
deadline. Failure to do so will result in a late submission.
For abstract and proposal submission dates, see Part I., Overview Information and information
stated below. Submissions received after these dates and times may not be reviewed. Failure to
comply with the submission procedures outlined herein may result in the submission not being
evaluated.
The proposal must be received at DARPA/TTO, 675 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA
22203-2114 (Attn.: HR001117S0011) on or before the date and time listed in Part I., Overview
Information and stated below in order to be considered during the initial round of selections;
however, proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to 12 months
(365 days) from date of posting on FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov) or Grants.gov. The ability to
review and select proposals submitted after the initial round deadline specified in the BAA or due
date otherwise specified by DARPA will be contingent on availability of funds. Proposers are
warned that the likelihood of available funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the
initial closing date deadline.
For a proposal that includes both classified and unclassified information, the proposal
should be separated into an unclassified portion and a classified portion. The proposal
should use the unclassified portion to the maximum extent reasonable. The
unclassified portion can be submitted through the DARPA BAA Website, per the
instructions above. The classified portion must be mailed separately, according to
the instructions outlined in the “Security Information” section above. If a classified
proposal may not be partitioned into classified and unclassified portions, then submit
according to the instructions outlined in the “Security Information” section above.
When a proposal includes a classified portion, and when able according to security
guidelines, we ask that proposers send an e-mail to OFFSET@darpa.mil as
notification that there is a classified portion to the proposal. When sending the
classified portion via mail according to the instructions outlined in the “Security
Information” section above, proposers should submit an original and six (6) hard
copies of the classified portion of their proposal and two (2) CD-ROMs containing
the classified portion of the proposal as a single searchable Adobe PDF file.
Please ensure that all CDs are well-marked. Each copy of the classified portion must
be clearly labeled with HR001117S0011, proposer organization, proposal title (short
title recommended), and Copy _ of _.
C. Funding Restrictions
Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.
A. Evaluation Criteria
Swarm System Integrator & subsequent Swarm Sprinter proposals will be evaluated using the
following criteria, listed in descending order of importance:
As part of DARPA’s Mission, the proposer must clearly demonstrate its capability to transition
the technology to the research, industrial, and/or operational military communities in such a way
as to enhance U.S. defense. In addition, the evaluation will take into consideration the extent to
which the proposed intellectual property rights structure will potentially impact the Government’s
ability to transition the technology. The Government would like to engage with a wider developer
and user audience for this capability and desires an open-source solution.
A.3. Cost and Schedule Realism
The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately reflect
the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs are consistent with the
proposer's Statement of Work and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort
needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach. The costs for the prime
proposer and proposed subawardees are substantiated by the details provided in the proposal (e.g.,
the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of materials,
equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for the
estimates).
It is expected that the effort will leverage all available relevant prior research in order to obtain the
maximum benefit from the available funding. For efforts with a likelihood of commercial
application, appropriate direct cost sharing may be a positive factor in the evaluation. DARPA
recognizes that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to offer low-risk ideas with
minimum uncertainty and to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more
competitive posture. DARPA discourages such cost strategies.
B. Review of Proposals
A.1. Abstracts
DARPA will respond to abstracts with a statement as to whether DARPA is interested in the idea.
If DARPA does not recommend the proposer submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide
feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Regardless of DARPA’s
response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all full
proposals submitted using the published evaluation criteria and without regard to any comments
resulting from the review of an abstract.
A.2. Proposals
As soon as the evaluation of a proposal is complete, the proposer will be notified that (1) the
proposal has been selected for funding pending award negotiations, in whole or in part, or (2) the
proposal has not been selected. These official notifications will be sent via e-mail to the Technical
POC and/or Administrative POC identified on the proposal coversheet.
C. Reporting
The number and types of reports will be specified in the award document, but will include as a
minimum monthly technical and financial status reports. The reports shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with the procedures contained in the award document and mutually agreed
on before award. Reports and briefing material will also be required as appropriate to document
progress in accomplishing program metrics. A Final Report that summarizes the project and tasks
will be required at the conclusion of the performance period for the award, notwithstanding the
fact that the research may be continued under a follow-on vehicle. At least one copy of each report
will be delivered to DARPA and not merely placed on a SharePoint site.
D. Electronic Systems
D.2. i-Edison
The award document for each proposal selected for funding will contain a mandatory requirement
for patent reports and notifications to be submitted electronically through i-Edison
(https://public.era.nih.gov/iedison).
DARPA will use e-mail for all technical and administrative correspondence regarding this
solicitation.
Technical POC: Timothy Chung, Program Manager, DARPA/TTO
A. Proposers Day
The OFFSET Proposers Day was held on January 30, 2017 in Arlington, VA. Advance registration
was required. Note: The registration deadline was January 25, 2017.
DARPA highly encourages collaborative efforts and teaming and recommends the formation of
teams with the necessary expertise and/or experience before proposal submission. Interested
parties should submit a teaming profile, including the following information:
DARPA will attempt to answer questions in a timely manner; however, questions submitted within
seven (7) days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA will post a consolidated
FAQ list at: https://www.fbo.gov. The list will be updated on an ongoing basis until the BAA
expiration date as stated in Part I.
This same or similar clause will be included in all awards against DARPA BAA#
HR001117S0011.
It is recognized that success of the OFFSET effort depends in part upon the open exchange of
information between the various Associate Contractors involved in the effort. This clause is
intended to insure that there will be appropriate coordination and integration of work by the
Work under this contract may involve access to proprietary or confidential data from an Associate
Contractor. To the extent that such data is received by the Contractor from any Associate
Contractor for the performance of this contract, the Contractor hereby agrees that any proprietary
information received shall remain the property of the Associate Contractor and shall be used solely
for the purpose of the DARPA OFFSET research effort. Only that information which is received
from another contractor in writing and which is clearly identified as proprietary or confidential
shall be protected in accordance with this provision. The obligation to retain such information in
confidence will be satisfied if the Contractor receiving such information utilizes the same controls
as it employs to avoid disclosure, publication, or dissemination of its own proprietary information.
The receiving Contractor agrees to hold such information in confidence as provided herein so long
as such information is of a proprietary/confidential or limited rights nature.
The Contractor hereby agrees to closely cooperate as an Associate Contractor with the other
Associate Contractors on this research effort. This involves as a minimum:
In the event that the Contractor and the Associate Contractor are unable to agree upon any such
interface matter of substance, or if the technical data identified is not provided as scheduled, the
Contractor shall promptly notify the DARPA OFFSET Program Manager and
Contracting/Agreements Officer. The Government will determine the appropriate corrective action
and will issue guidance to the affected Contractor.
The Contractor agrees to insert in all subcontracts hereunder which require access to proprietary
information belonging to the Associate Contractor, a provision which shall conform substantially
to the language of this clause, including this paragraph.
E. List of Attachments
F. Bibliography
[1] P. Scharre, “The Coming Swarm”, Center for a New American Security, Washington,
D.C., 2014.
[2] J. Arquilla and D. Ronfeldt, “Swarming and the Future of Conflict”, RAND National
Defense Research Institute, 2000.
[3] Defense Science Board, “Summer Study on Autonomy”, Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Washington, D.C., 2016.
[4] United States Army, “Mad Scientist: Megacities and Dense Urban Areas in 2025 and
Beyond”, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) G-2, Fort Eustis, VA, 2016.
[5] Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research & Technology), “US
Army: Emerging Science and Technology Trends: 2016-2045,” U.S. Army, Tech.
Rep., April 2016.
[6] C. Storlie, Lt.Col.(R), “Force Agility through Crowdsourced Development of Tactics”,
Military Review, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 97-103, 2016.
[7] National Research Council, The Rise of Games and High-performance Computing for
Modeling and Simulation. National Academies Press, 2010, no. 978-0-309-14777-4.
[8] B. Browning, J. Bruce, M. Bowling and M. Veloso, “STP: Skills, Tactics and Plays for
Multi-Robot Control in Adversarial Environments”, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2004.
[9] T. Apker, B. Johnson and L. Humphrey, “LTL Templates for Play-Calling Supervisory
Control”, in AIAA Infotech@Aerospace, San Diego, CA, 2016, pp. 1-11.
[10] A. Kolling, P. Walker, N. Chakraborty, K. Sycara and M. Lewis, “Human Interaction
with Robot Swarms: A Survey”, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol.
46, no. 1, pp. 9-26, 2016.
[11] Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks & Information Integration) (NII)/DoD Chief
Information Officer (CIO), “Open Technology Development (OTD): Lessons Learned
and Best Practices for Military Software”, Washington, D.C., 2011.