Offset Baa Draft

Broad Agency Announcement
OFFensive Swarm Enabled Tactics (OFFSET)

Tactical Technology Office (TTO)
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Tactical Technology Office
675 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-2114
BAA#TBD
OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)
Table of Contents
I.
Funding Opportunity Description ........................................................................................ 5

A.
Program Vision ............................................................................................................. 5
B.
Program Description ..................................................................................................... 7
B.1. Core Elements of the OFFSET Swarm System ........................................................ 7
B.2. Defining the Swarm Systems Architecture ............................................................. 12
B.3. OFFSET Swarm Ecosystem ................................................................................... 14
B.4. OFFSET Metrics ..................................................................................................... 16
C.
Program Structure ....................................................................................................... 17
C.1. OFFSET Capability-Based Experimentation .......................................................... 18
D.
OFFSET Deliverables ................................................................................................. 19
II. Award Information............................................................................................................. 21

A.
General Award Information ........................................................................................ 21
B.
Fundamental Research ................................................................................................ 22
III.
Eligibility Information.................................................................................................... 22
A.
Eligible Applicants...................................................................................................... 22
A.1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government
Entities .............................................................................................................................. 23
B.
Organizational Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................ 23
C.
Cost Sharing/Matching ............................................................................................... 25
IV. Application and Submission Information ...................................................................... 25
A.
Address to Request Application Package ................................................................... 25
B.
Content and Form of Application Submission............................................................ 25
B.1. Abstracts ................................................................................................................. 25
B.2. Proposals ................................................................................................................. 27
B.3. Proprietary and Security Information ..................................................................... 38
B.4. Additional Proposal Information ............................................................................ 39
B.5. Submission Information .......................................................................................... 42
C.
Funding Restrictions ................................................................................................... 45
D.
Other Submission Requirements................................................................................. 45
V.
Application Review Information ................................................................................... 45
A.
Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................... 45
A.1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit ................................................................... 45
A.2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission .............................. 46
A.3. Cost and Schedule Realism ..................................................................................... 46
A.4. Proposers Capabilities and/or Related Experience ................................................ 46
BAA# TBD
B.
Review of Proposals ................................................................................................... 47

B.1. Review Process ....................................................................................................... 47
B.2. Handling of Source Selection Information ............................................................. 47
B.3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS) ...................... 47
VI. Award Administration Information................................................................................ 47

A.
Selection Notices and Notifications ............................................................................ 47
A.1. Abstracts ................................................................................................................. 47
A.2. Proposals ................................................................................................................. 48
B.
Administrative and National Policy Requirements..................................................... 48
B.1. Meeting and Travel Requirements .......................................................................... 48
B.2. FAR and DFARS Clauses....................................................................................... 48
B.3. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems ... 48
B.4. Representations and Certifications ......................................................................... 48
B.5. Terms and Conditions (for grants and cooperative agreements only) .................... 48
C.
Reporting..................................................................................................................... 48
D.
Electronic Systems ...................................................................................................... 49
D.1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) ........................................................................... 49
D.2. i-Edison ................................................................................................................... 49
VII.
VIII.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
BAA# TBD
Agency Contacts ............................................................................................................ 49

Other Information ....................................................................................................... 49
Proposers Day ............................................................................................................. 49
Collaborations and Teaming ....................................................................................... 49
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) .......................................................................... 50
Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) Clause ........................................................ 50
List of Attachments ..................................................................................................... 51
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 51
PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION
Federal Agency Name Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),

Tactical Technology Office (TTO)
Funding Opportunity Title OFFensive Swarm Enabled Tactics (OFFSET)
Announcement Type Initial Announcement
Funding Opportunity Number TBD
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 12.910 Research and

Technology Development
Dates
o
o
o
o
o
Posting Date:
Abstract Due:
Questions Due:
Proposers Day:
Proposal Due:
To be specified later
30 January 2017, Arlington, VA
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.
Total amount anticipated to be awarded Approximately $14M
Anticipated individual awards DARPA intends to award up to two Swarm Systems

Integrators.
Types of instruments that may be awarded Procurement contract, grant, cooperative

agreement or other transaction.
Agency contact
o Points of Contact
The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:
OFFSET@darpa.mil
BAA# TBD
PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I.
Funding Opportunity Description
This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR 200.203. Any resultant award
negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for
procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the
BAA.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals to
expand the operational effectiveness of combat forces utilizing unmanned swarm systems.
Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in
science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in
evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.
The following information is for those wishing to respond to this BAA.
A.
Program Vision
An unprecedented confluence of advanced technologies is unleashing transformative capabilities,

particularly in the context of distributed, large-scale, autonomous systems. The increasing
availability of such systems has renewed and reinvigorated the exploration and acceleration of
swarm capabilities. These technological advances have converged to give rise to five key areas for
swarm systems, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Swarm autonomy encompasses adaptive, complex, collective behaviors for intelligent

movement, decisions, and interactions with the
environment.
Human-swarm teaming highlights the need and

ability to interact, influence, and infer swarm system
behaviors.
Swarm perception involves large-scale, distributed

and dispersed sensing, fusion, and distillation of
information.
Swarm networking pertains to adaptive, resilient,

fragmented sharing and storage of distributed
information.
Swarm logistics addresses both hardware and

software deployment, support, and maintenance of
large-scale systems.
Figure 1: Five key enablers for swarm system

capabilities. The vision for OFFSET is to
catalyze revolutionary advances in the areas of
swarm autonomy and human-swarm teaming.
The goal of the OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) program is to advance and
accelerate elements of these enabling swarm technologies, focusing on the swarm autonomy and
human-swarm teaming components of swarm system capabilities. OFFSET places specific
BAA#TBD
emphasis on operationally relevant swarm tactics as the basis for leap-ahead advances in swarm
capabilities.
Swarm tactics specifically capitalize on the unique attributes of swarm systems to effect tactical
advantage [1], [2]. Swarm size (the number of elements in the swarm) has often been the prevailing
(albeit limiting) consideration when identifying advantages of swarm technologies. The
underlying premise of the OFFSET program is that the potential of swarm systems has yet to be
fully explored and realized. Swarm tactics that fully leverage the richness of swarm systems
beyond swarm size, to include agent and collective complexity, heterogeneity in the swarms
composition, and collaborative interactions between humans and the swarm, lead to disruptive
swarm capability advantages.
The key benefit of designating swarm tactics as the focal point of OFFSET is to more clearly
and intuitively capture commanders intent by representing autonomous swarm capabilities in a
tactical lingua franca. A common vocabulary would anticipate, if not accelerate, rapid advances
in autonomy, artificial intelligence, platform designs, and perception and embedded component
technologies. The swarm tactics-centric developments envisioned by OFFSET also aim to reduce
the cognitive impedance mismatch that currently limits interactions with existing multi-robot
system technologies. Figure 2 illustrates the swarm tactics-centered framework with which
OFFSET seeks to advance swarm system capabilities.
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 warfighters 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.
BAA# TBD
As the central focus of OFFSET, swarm tactics catalyze operationally relevant swarm system
capabilities via the composition of swarm primitives, conducted in sequence and/or concurrently,
to address tactical objectives in support of the mission. Although a swarm system could
dramatically enhance human execution of existing tactics for, e.g., isolating and clearing a
building, suppressing enemy fires, or maintaining flank security, OFFSET intends to inspire the
generation of innovative swarm tactics that disruptively create new opportunities for future
swarm system capabilities.
One of the many potential operating environments where future swarm capabilities may
demonstrate game-changing impact is in urban operations in dense urban environments [4].
Particular challenges include the increasingly vertical, occluded, and channelized contexts in
which small-unit ground forces must maneuver, defend, and engage both dynamic environments
and adversaries. Such impediments are exacerbated by the fact that such operations must often be
conducted in areas where knowledge, access, and/or control of factors like infrastructure, supply
chains, local conditions, and potential threats are severely limited. The very nature of these dense
urban areas calls for advances in distributed and dispersed unmanned system capabilities organic
to company-level and below ground units of the future.
OFFSET seeks revolutionary capabilities to assert and maintain superiority of the urban operating
environment, both in the air and on the ground. OFFSET is interested in highly capable,
heterogeneous swarm systems numbering upwards of 250 collaborating autonomous swarm
elements, across multiple spatial and temporal scales of tactical interest, e.g., conducting
operations in built-up areas up to eight city blocks in size over mission durations of up to six hours.
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).
BAA# TBD
Figure 3: The three key facets for the envisioned OFFSET Swarm Systems Architecture, unifying synergies in the innovation,
interaction, and integration of swarm tactics
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
BAA# TBD
fictitious sensors able to localize and identify all personnel; futuristic mobility and endurance
capabilities for air or ground platforms; or advanced networking technologies for highly resilient
communications.
Both approaches aim to inform the complex, multi-faceted considerations of swarm systems with
the goal of iteratively and interactively deriving insights into swarm technology gaps as well as
identifying potential swarm capabilities that give rise to strategic surprise.
A construct by which to capture these insights is the concept of a swarm tactics exchange or
marketplace for cultivating community contributions of swarm tactics and/or supporting
components. In an effort to promote and explore innovative ideas for swarm system employment
in tactical contexts, a swarm tactics exchange can provide an interface that the community may
use to experiment, expand, enhance, and then contribute swarm tactics and/or the necessary
building blocks, i.e., swarm algorithms or swarm primitives.
Proposed designs of a swarm tactics exchange (as part of the broader swarm software architecture)
should encourage and facilitate third-party development and active contribution of swarm tactics
and relevant components. Other extensible features (i.e., add-ons or game mods) to be
potentially considered in the design include, for example, third-party generated scenarios and
maps, possible technology injects, new sensor or communications models, and support for
customizable game data export formats or standard streaming protocols.
Systems should also consider various techniques to encourage and incentivize frequent and highquality submissions, such as gamification techniques, leaderboards, or other community-fostering
features. It is anticipated that in creating such an interactive repository of swarm tactics, a
descriptive taxonomy of swarm tactics will become necessary and helpful for filtering, searching,
and categorizing swarm tactics (e.g., by mission, by domain, by swarm primitive, by keywords),
which should be explicitly designed into the proposed swarm software architecture.
Special considerations for moderated contributions (e.g., for quality assurance) and access to the
proposed swarm tactics exchange should be included in proposed designs, to address potential
security-related or export-controlled concerns, such as enabling Government-only versus public
access repositories or interfaces.
In addition to the curation of swarm tactics, the OFFSET software architecture is envisioned to
further provide the requisite game analytics capabilities to assess and explore the contributed body
of swarm tactics. Features supporting such analysis may include: automated report generation on
swarm tactics performance for benchmark game scenarios; the ability to conduct rigorous
simulation experiments (e.g., Monte Carlo), perhaps with faster-than-real-time or headless
execution (i.e., no visualization); exposed hooks enabling experimental design inputs, data
extraction, and statistical analysis; and interface specifications to apply machine learning
techniques to large volumes of game-generated data and results. Such features may benefit from
leveraging lessons learned from emerging game analytics methodologies and associated game
performance metrics.
Proposers should provide a brief self-assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the
intended design of the swarm tactics exchange and the supporting software architecture, in terms
of identifying key technical challenges, anticipated complexity of the software interfaces, and the
impact on adoption by third-party contributors and the OFFSET community. Supporting details
BAA# TBD
of interest in proposed concepts include holistic plans for ensuring up-to-date swarm tactics
documentation (such as templates for user-contributed swarm tactics), as well as capture, access,
and management of datasets and results from, e.g., gameplay sessions, community activity metrics,
or overall performance assessments across the entire swarm tactics corpus.
B.1.b. Interacting with Swarm Tactics: Advanced Human-Swarm Interfaces
With the increased swarm autonomy envisioned in OFFSET, novel human-swarm interaction
frameworks and enabling technologies are necessary to address the challenges and complexities
of swarm systems [10]. The use of swarm tactics elevates the types of interactions anticipated for
high-level engagement with the OFFSET swarm, transforming the role of the conventional
unmanned system operator into a mission-oriented tactical coordinator or swarm tactician. In
contrast, previous efforts explored supervisory control methodologies, but could not yet address
the scale, complexity, and dynamic interaction of interest to OFFSET and its envisioned future
human-swarm teaming contexts.
Further, the richness of context required to capture and convey commanders intent, as represented
by the composition of swarm tactics, calls for a dramatically different paradigm for thinking about
interfaces with the future swarm system. These interfaces will likely include rapidly advancing
immersive interactive technologies, such as augmented and virtual reality, and increasingly
capable naturalistic interaction modalities, such as gestures (e.g., hand or body), dialogue (e.g.,
with virtual assistants), touch or haptic interfaces, and other novel modalities.
Future human-swarm interactions span the diverse types and scales of complex tasks, including
spatial (e.g., collective maneuver of one or more swarms), temporal (e.g., sequencing or
synchronization of swarms), and logical (e.g., grouping or split/join of sub-swarms). Further, the
spectrum of interaction use cases may range from swarm planning, where design of sequences of
swarm tactics is conducted in an a priori fashion, all the way to free-style swarm interactions,
where the swarm tactician can dynamically compose and modulate the execution of swarm tactics
in real time.
In this manner, OFFSET is interested in the development and integration of these novel immersive
environments and interaction modalities for the purpose of enhanced engagement of swarm tactics.
Also of interest are advances in presentation layer and decision support capabilities, swarm tactics
design environments (e.g., graphical tools, sketch recognition, natural language), swarm mission
planning tools, and other enhanced swarm tactics interfaces. Mission analysis tools, including
presentation of possible courses-of-action with calculated measures of effectiveness, are of high
interest.
To effect greater impact in advancing human-swarm teaming capabilities, OFFSET also seeks the
design and definition of a swarm interaction grammar, which serves as a medium through which
common interfaces for human-swarm interactions can be identified. By constructing such a
grammar, -- that is, mapping efficient and effective means of interactions to swarm tactics,
swarm behaviors, or even swarm algorithms -- standardization of such interfaces can enable
exploration and benchmarking of the effectiveness of different interaction modalities as well as
the cognitive complexity of the swarm tactics. The swarm interaction grammar would be intended
to help inform and codify best practices for continuing advances in human-swarm teaming,
providing insights into not only what features and parameters in swarm tactics are most relevant,
but also how, when, and why to enhance them to improve swarm system and mission performance.
BAA# TBD
10
The design of the swarm interaction grammar should be an extensible framework to address not
only currently envisioned swarm tactics, but potentially future swarm tactics as well.
Proposers should further define and describe one or more concepts of operations for their technical
approach and selection of interactive technologies, representing a vision for how the human-swarm
interaction with swarm tactics is manifested and managed in operational contexts. For example,
for a small-unit dismounted soldier actively engaged in forward operations, full immersion in
virtual reality at the expense of situational awareness and safety may not be feasible, whereas an
enhanced augmented reality interface may provide sufficient swarm interactions while maintaining
awareness of current surroundings. Conversely, a dedicated swarm coordinator may reside in a
protected enclosure (e.g., mobile command vehicle) or at a higher-echelon base of operations (e.g.,
a forward operating base) where the richness of full virtual reality may provide significant
advantages in dynamically interacting with the deployed swarm.
Given the increasing availability and maturation of commercial hardware (e.g., AR/VR headsets)
and/or open software development kits for immersive interactive technologies of relevance to
OFFSET, the design or development of new interface hardware, to include peripherals or
accessories, is outside the scope of this BAA.
B.1.c. Integrating Swarm Tactics: Agile Swarm Experimentation Capabilities
A primary objective for OFFSET is to integrate the developed swarm tactics in a physical swarm
testbed, including aerial and ground autonomous systems, with the hopes of advancing swarm
capabilities beyond the game-based virtual environment. The intention is to bring swarm
technologies to a level of maturity that would enable extensive experimentation to drive concept
generation; develop increased familiarity with autonomous swarm systems; inspire new tactics,
techniques, and procedures (TTPs); and identify new mission trade spaces and technology gaps
for swarms in practice.
OFFSET will challenge existing capabilities and physical realizations of swarm systems to explore
large-scale, heterogeneous swarms. Within OFFSET, large-scale would be a threshold of 100 with
an objective of 250 combined aerial and ground autonomous systems. OFFSET invites proposed
efforts to identify specification of surrogate platforms capable of collaboratively employing swarm
tactics that will likely achieve the desired objective capabilities detailed in Table 1, by operational
contexts and program vignette.
Table 1: Objective capabilities of interest for surrogate aerial and ground autonomous swarm systems
Operational
Context
Mission Duration
Area of Operations
Swarm Size
Vignette 1
Vignette 2
Vignette 3
15-30 minutes
approx. two
square
city blocks
50
1-2 hours
approx. four
square
city blocks
100
4-6 hours
approx. eight
square
city blocks
250
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.
BAA# TBD
11
Mission Duration describes the time during which the swarm is actively employed,
potentially including transit and deployment times.
Area of Operations describes the physical size of the urban sector, including the vertical
dimension, in which the swarm agents are conducting the mission.
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.
BAA# TBD
12
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
instances, e.g., within the game-based environment, to streamline the transition from the virtual to
the physical domain.
The swarm architecture represents the inter-agent capabilities as well as swarm interactions with
command elements. Specification of such a system-of-systems architecture requires definition of
network configurations and communication protocols; identification of standard data structures,
information sharing methods for world models, and shared awareness of the state of the swarm
system; and the specification of transparent swarm software interfaces that enable design and
implementation of swarm tactics.
A key consideration in the realization of swarm tactics arises from the need to compose multiple
swarm building blocks (i.e., swarm algorithms, swarm primitives, and even other swarm tactics),
potentially created and contributed by disparate third-party developers. Clear specification and
documentation of the relevant interfaces, including those relevant to intra-swarm as well as
potential inter-swarm (e.g., when sub-swarms are present) configurations for swarm tactics, is
desired.
Of significant interest are swarm architectures which can flexibly adapt, i.e., either prior to or in
the midst of current collective swarm tactics execution, in the face of system uncertainty, dynamic
environments, and adversarial conditions. Development of entirely new technologies in the areas
of resilient communications and distributed computation are outside the scope of this BAA;
proposers are instead encouraged to maximally leverage existing state-of-the-art capabilities and
open standards (e.g., established extensible message formats, public-domain algorithms, opensource distributed systems libraries).
Support for extensible access and tools for collecting, processing, and analyzing swarm system,
such as data logging, playback, and visualization, is also considered essential for the swarm system
architecture, with an emphasis on enabling both evaluation and exploration of swarm systems
capabilities through simulation and experimentation.
Additional Swarm Systems Architecture Capabilities:
Proposers should have a firm grounding in multi-agent architectures. The Government is interested
in proposals with knowledgeable insights across the many architectures that consider messaging
protocols, and which compare and contrast the proposed architecture against other architectures.
This BAA is interested in the development and demonstration of holistic, integrated swarm system
capabilities.
Rapid deployment of swarm tactics and associated architectures represent another key element of
the swarm capabilities envisioned and desired in an objective operational system. Potential use
cases for large-scale deployments of new swarm tactics or capabilities are detailed below:
a) Need the ability to massively provision/track/manage deployments (e.g., as in Internet-ofThings (IoT) deployments), including to robotic systems with different capabilities and
hardware configurations, potentially occurring prior to operational employment;
BAA# TBD
13
b) Need the ability to rapidly push new software elements, i.e., swarm tactics, to already
forward employed systems in austere environments, which may include unfavorable and/or
intermittent communications, mobile and dynamic environments, etc.
Proposed solutions should also briefly address issues of security in these types of large-scale
networks for resilience to attacks for secure updates, e.g., of software, patches, and configurations.
However, development efforts focused solely or significantly on security of IoT systems (e.g.,
secure booting, access control, device authentication, firewalling) [12] are outside the scope of this
BAA.
Note that design or development efforts of new or low-maturity domain-specific languages for
multi-agent systems is also outside the scope of this effort; any proposals detailing the use of such
languages must provide extremely compelling technical justification as to the utility and
advantages over conventional programming paradigms, as well as explicit considerations for
fostering a community around and facilitating adoption of such languages.
Also outside the scope of this BAA is any substantial level of effort for the development of new
sensor and communications hardware components. Proposed approaches are instead encouraged
to focus on how potential capabilities created by such novel technologies might inform or impact
the design of enhanced swarm tactics.
B.3. OFFSET Swarm Ecosystem
The key to success will be the creation and cultivation of a community in which swarm capabilities
and enabling technologies are developed, combining systems-level architecture enhancements and
direction (e.g., mission-oriented scenarios) with the underlying technological advances (e.g.,
distributed swarm algorithms). Participants in this OFFSET swarm ecosystem comprise Swarm
Systems Integrators, Swarm Sprinters, and the OFFSET Government Team, as described below.
It is anticipated that (a) successful Swarm Systems Integrator(s) will require cooperation and
interaction across the OFFSET swarm ecosystem, and will work towards achieving the program
metrics (see Section I.B.4) for each of the three operational vignettes (refer to Section I.C.1),
demonstrating continued technological progress and scalability of the developed capabilities. The
resulting swarm system is expected to provide an open-source architecture that will be released to
other performers, other Government agencies, and potentially the broader community. A
successful Swarm Sprinter will collaboratively work with the Swarm Systems Integrator(s) to help
achieve the OFFSET program mission quickly and affordably.
B.3.a. Swarm Systems Integrators
This BAA seeks well-balanced and expert teams, referred to as Swarm Systems Integrators (SSIs),
capable of holistically designing, developing, and deploying the envisioned OFFSET swarm
system architecture, as detailed above, to include:
an extensible game-based architecture to enable design and integration of swarm tactics
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
BAA# TBD
14
aggressive experimentation and systems integration efforts for realizing swarm capabilities
It is anticipated that Swarm Systems Integrators are high-performing, well-managed agile teams,
possessing both breadth across numerous disciplines, as well as deep understanding and experience
in the fundamental research and development challenges at both agent- and swarm-system levels.
Key characteristics of such Swarm Systems Integrators include exceptional vision, aptitude, and
experience in:
agile game development with open-source game engines
robotic systems integration (i.e., real-world hardware, software, and communications)
human/cognitive interactions, including user experience design and evaluation
multi-robot systems and collaborative autonomy algorithm development
agile software systems engineering and federated open architectures (e.g., DevOps)
online community development
toolchains for distributed software, data, and computation (e.g., Internet-of-Things)
statistical experimental design and simulation analysis for autonomy assessment
OFFSET intends to award up to two Swarm Systems Integrators to develop the overarching opensource architecture, to include the game-based environment, the interactive human-swarm
interface technologies, and the definition of software interfaces enabling modular swarm tactics
development. OFFSET anticipates that Swarm Systems Integrators will perform throughout the
duration of the program to facilitate continued competition and technology alternatives deliverable
to the Government. The OFFSET Swarm Systems Integrators will also be responsible for the
design and execution of the capability-based experiments, working alongside the Government
Team (refer to Section I.B.3.c), as well as continued integration of product increments delivered
by additional performers, e.g., Swarm Sprinters.
B.3.b. Swarm Sprinters
In separate solicitations, funded Swarm Sprinters may comprise third-party developers and/or
users. These Swarm Sprinters must be able to design swarm tactics and/or requisite supporting
elements, as well as develop and integrate them according to the specifications set forth by the
architectures (as developed by the Swarm Systems Integrators).
The Government would like to engage with a wider developer and user audience for this capability;
therefore, OFFSET anticipates soliciting proposals for Swarm Sprinters over multiple intervals to
conduct sprints or rapid technology development efforts to generate novel swarm tactics and to
accelerate additional enabling technologies while ensuring operational relevance of the capabilitybased experiments.
Candidate sprint topics may include more narrowly defined thrusts (such as, for example, the
design of swarm tactics relevant to searching a building for hidden caches), or broad emphasis
areas (such as integration of novel maneuver specifications for heterogeneous swarm systems).
Possible sprints may also emphasize desired improvements to the overall architecture, including
BAA# TBD
15
enabling toolkits and/or interface enhancements; payload development studies; swarm deployment
technologies; and/or other focused investigations based on continued monitoring of advancing
technologies relevant to the OFFSET program interests.
Proposals for Swarm Sprinters are expected to be solicited through multiple Special Notices to this
BAA issued at periodic (approximately six month) intervals. The development sprints comprise
focused short-term efforts, with key objectives to deliver frequent product increments and integrate
them with the open-source architectures provided by the Swarm Systems Integrators. Upon
selection, Swarm Sprinters are expected to work with the Swarm Systems Integrator(s) to further
enhance the swarm systems architecture and its demonstrable capabilities. The Swarm Systems
Integrator(s) are also expected to work collaboratively and openly with the Swarm Sprinters to
enable smooth integration and encourage user feedback. To promote this open and transparent
teamwork, OFFSET will use Associate Contractor Agreements (see Section VIII.D) and intends
to prohibit any selected Swarm Systems Integrator(s) and any subsidiaries from proposing to or
being awarded as a Swarm Sprinter.
B.3.c. OFFSET Government Team
OFFSET intends to leverage a Government Team experienced in conducting experiments and
evaluations in the areas of (a) urban operations and tactical aerial and ground-based unmanned
systems, (b) integrated systems and agile software engineering and development, (c) human
systems integration, and (d) open system architecture assessments. This Government team will
also conduct red team reviews to iteratively assess the effectiveness, safety, security, and processes
used by the Swarm Systems Integrators to ensure a robust and operationally relevant swarm system
capability by program completion. This Government Team will continue to adapt to the needs of
the program throughout the development and experimentation process, and will work closely with
both Swarm Systems Integrators and Swarm Sprinters.
B.4. OFFSET Metrics
OFFSET is focused on swarm tactics and their role in furthering swarm-enabling capabilities of
swarm autonomy and human-swarm teaming. As such, OFFSETs program metrics, as defined in
this section and summarized in Figure 4, represent the achievable yet ambitious goals aligned with
the realization of these capabilities.
BAA# TBD
16
Figure 4: OFFSET Program Goals and Metrics, emphasizing key advances and desired technology outcomes relevant to swarm
autonomy and human-swarm teaming capabilities
For Swarm Autonomy, the goal for each Swarm Systems Integrator is to have facilitated, curated,
and assessed a diverse pool of swarm tactics relevant to the operational scenarios outlined
throughout the OFFSET program. Proposers should envision aggressive engagement with swarm
tactics developers and contributors to meet the stated goal of over 100 swarm tactics entries,
demonstrated to be operable with the developed Swarm Systems Architecture.
Key sub-goals, as identified in Figure 4, that support this swarm tactics generation and assessment
goal represent not only an aggressive pace of swarm tactics development, but also an emphasis on
evaluating the performance and quality of the swarm tactics as well as the ease with which the
overall architecture and associated swarm tactics infrastructure can be deployed to physical
platforms.
For Human-Swarm Teaming, the goal for the advanced interfaces developed by the Swarm
Systems Integrator(s) is to significantly revolutionize the ability to interact and engage with
substantively large tactical swarm sizes to effect meaningful operational impact. Proposers should
advance the interface, configuration, and supporting technologies to facilitate dynamic (i.e., freestyle) and real-time interactions of swarm systems with over 100 swarm elements operating in
concert and in support of the swarm mission.
Referring again to Figure 4, several sub-goals further accentuate the emphasis on intuitive
interfaces for fluidly engaging large autonomous swarms, with the ability to conceive and author
new swarm tactics quickly, to provide rich swarm decision support capabilities, and to further
empower the human element of the swarm systems in conducting scalable, flexible swarm
operations.
C.
Program Structure
OFFSET is structured as a 42-month program effort, with six biannual capability-based

experiments. The first phase extends for 18 months, with subsequent two phases conducted over
BAA# TBD
17
12 months each. This Broad Agency Announcement solicits proposals for the Swarm Systems
Integrators, envisioned to perform throughout the duration of the OFFSET program.
Sprints are initiated by separate solicitations, with focus areas to be identified progressively as the
program evolves. It is anticipated that Special Notices may be issued as the solicitation mechanism,
as illustrated notionally in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Notional depiction of components of the OFFSET program, including one or more Swarm Systems Integrators,
multiple Swarm Sprinters, and periodic integration activities.
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.
BAA# TBD
18
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)
contexts are to be outlined for each experiment by DARPA and its Government Team and/or
Service partners.
Demonstrations of integrated swarm capabilities, including swarm tactics development and
execution via advanced swarm interfaces, are expected to utilize the swarm platforms (i.e., fixedwing, multi-rotor, and/or ground robotic platforms) as proposed by Swarm Systems Integrators.
Significant technology development specifically for swarm system deployment (e.g., transport,
charging, delivery of platforms) is not the focus of OFFSET; however, proposals are encouraged
to consider and/or leverage experimentation solutions that account for such logistical challenges
of swarm systems to better highlight novel insights and their impacts on swarm tactics.
OFFSET Swarm Systems Integrator(s) will create a swarm framework applicable to emerging
needs for future urban warfare. OFFSETs approach centered on swarm tactics facilitates more
direct engagement between warfighters and technologists to generate operationally relevant swarm
capabilities. Through agile development cycles embodied in these capability-based experiments,
OFFSET will provide frequent technology off-ramps for rapid transition to the user community,
which is expected to be the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army. This transition strategy will allow
for the most successful components of the swarm architecture, including software, interface
technologies, swarm tactics, integrated hardware solutions, and supporting tools, to be deployed
expediently upon the completion of any capability based demonstration.
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
BAA# TBD
19
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
demonstration. The delivery is to include sufficient documentation so as to be
completely operable, maintainable and modifiable with no reliance on any nondelivered hardware/documentation developed or procured under the OFFSET program.
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 performers 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.f.
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 months 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.
BAA# TBD
20
A list of deliverables expected for Swarm Sprinters will be released in subsequent solicitations
relevant to the given interests for the specific sprint.
II.
Award Information
A.
General Award Information
Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will
depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.
The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals
received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers.
The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be
necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options.
Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only
portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a
proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to
fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.
The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it
makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not
limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section 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, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending
upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether
or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.
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/contractmanagement#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
BAA# TBD
21
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:
Fundamental research means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the
results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific
community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development,
design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted
for proprietary or national security reasons.
As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government 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/additionalbaa.
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 awardees responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subawardees
effort is fundamental research.
III.
Eligibility Information
A.
Eligible Applicants
All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that
shall be considered by DARPA. Please note that FFRDC, Government entity, and foreign
participation is welcomed; however, some limitations may apply. Please see below.
BAA# TBD
22
A.1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and

Government Entities
A.1.a. FFRDCs
FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA
in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions: (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate
that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must
provide a letter on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific
authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with
industry, and their compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreements terms and
conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.
All proposers are expected to address transition; transition is part of the evaluation criteria in
Section V.A. However, given their special status, FFRDCs should describe how and when a
proposed technology/system will transition to which Non-FFRDC organization(s).
A.1.b. Government Entities
Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions,
etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government entities must clearly
demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written
documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant,
establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations.
A.1.c. Authority and Eligibility
At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. 3710a to be sufficient legal authority
to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C. 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for
some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency
approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and
Government entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove
eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.
(1)
Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the
extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security
regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.
(2)
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.
B.
Organizational Conflicts of Interest
FAR 9.5 Requirements
BAA# TBD
23
In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to
potential OCIs involving the proposers organization and any proposed team member
(subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this
disclosure with each proposal submitted to the BAA. The disclosure must include the
proposers, and as applicable, proposed team members OCI mitigation plan. The OCI
mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the proposer has taken, or intends to
take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the proposers judgment and to
prevent the proposer from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will
specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in
FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.
Agency Supplemental OCI Policy

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

The prime contract number;
Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and
An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.
Government Procedures
In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation
plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether
it is in the Governments 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 proposers OCI mitigation plan.
BAA# TBD
24
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 proposers OCI mitigation
plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.
C.
Cost Sharing/Matching
Cost sharing is not required; however, it will be carefully considered where there is an applicable
statutory condition relating to the selected funding instrument. Cost sharing is encouraged where
there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed
research and development effort.
For more information on potential cost sharing requirements for Other Transactions for Prototype,
see http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.
IV.
Application and Submission Information
A.
Address to Request Application Package
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).
B.
Content and Form of Application Submission
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 DARPAs
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.
BAA# TBD
25
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.
All pages shall be formatted for printing on 8-1/2 by 11-inch paper with 1-inch margins and font
size not smaller than 12-point font. Font sizes of 8-point and 10-point may be used for figures,
tables, and charts. Document files must be in .pdf, .odx, .doc, .docx, .xls, or xlxs formats.
Submissions must be written in English.
Abstracts must include the following components:
o Cover Sheet: Provide the following information:
(1) Label: Abstract
(2) BAA number (TBD)
(3) Abstract title
(4) Lead organization name
(5) Technical point of contact (POC) including name, mailing address,
telephone number, and e-mail address
(6) Administrative POC including name, mailing address, telephone
number, and e-mail address
(7) Estimated total cost
(8) Estimated period of performance
(9) Primary subcontractors (if known/applicable)
(10) Identify any other solicitation(s) to which this concept has been
proposed
o Goals and Impact: Answer the eight questions of the Heilmeier Catechism listed
below.
o Limit responses to 500 words per question and be as quantitative as possible.
What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely
no jargon.
What is the problem? Why is it hard?
How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be
successful?
Who cares? If you're successful, what difference will it make? What
impact will success have?
What are the risks and the payoffs? How will it be measured?
How much will it cost? How long will it take?
What are the midterm and final exams to check for success? How
will progress be measured?
o Technical Plan: Outline and address technical challenges inherent in the
approach and possible solutions for overcoming potential problems. Provide
appropriate specific milestones (quantitative, if possible) at intermediate stages of
the project to demonstrate progress.
BAA# TBD
26
o Capabilities/Management Plan: Provide a brief summary of expertise of the

team, including subcontractors and key personnel. Teaming arrangements do not
need to be finalized at the time of abstract submission; however, mention of
potential teaming/collaboration arrangements is encouraged. Identify a principal
investigator for the project and include a description of the teams organization,
including roles and responsibilities. Describe any existing intellectual property
required to complete the project and any specialized facilities to be used as part of
the project. List Government-furnished materials or data assumed to be available.
o Cost and Schedule: Provide a cost estimate for resources (e.g., labor, materials)
and any subcontractors over the proposed timeline of the project, broken down by
Government fiscal year.
o Bibliography {Optional exclusive of page count}: If desired, include a brief
bibliography with links to relevant papers, reports, or resumes of key team
members.
o Executive Summary Slide: Using the template provided as Slide 1 of
Attachment 1 to the BAA posted at www.fbo.gov and www.grants.gov, provide a
one-slide summary in PowerPoint that effectively and succinctly conveys the
main objective, key innovations, expected impact, and other unique aspects of the
proposed project.
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
BAA# TBD
27
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.
Page Limit Includes:
Executive Summary
Innovative Claims & Deliverables
Sprinter Integration Plan
Experimentation Plan
Data Collection & Management Plan
Maturation Plan
Personnel, Qualifications & Commitments
Management Approach
Relevance to DARPA Mission
Page Limit Does NOT include:

Cover Sheet
Official Transmittal Letter
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Slide
Concept Slide
Milestones and Deliverables Summary Table
Cost Summary Slide
Novelty of Proposed Work
Statement of Work
Intellectual Property
Subcontractor List
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.
B.2.a. Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal

Section I: Administrative
i.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BAA# TBD
Cover Sheet: Include the following information.

BAA number (TBD)
Technical area
Lead organization name
Type of organization, selected among the following categories:
Large Business Small Disadvantaged Business Other Small Business
HBCU
Minority Institution
Other Educational
Other Nonprofit
Proposers reference number (if any)
Other team members (if applicable) and type of organization for each
Proposal title
28
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Technical point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
address, city, state, zip code, telephone, fax (if available), electronic mail
Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
Total funds requested from DARPA separated by basic award and option(s) (if
any), and the amount of cost share (if any)
Award instrument requested: procurement contract (specify type), grant,
cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction
Proposal validity period (minimum 180 days)
Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number
Taxpayer identification number
Commercial and Government Cage Entity (CAGE) code
Date proposal was submitted
Section II: Summary of Proposal

i.
Table of contents
ii.
Executive Summary:
Provide an executive-level description of key elements and unique features of the
proposed OFFSET program. The Executive Summary shall also include a top-level
schedule that outlines the proposers overall vision and approach to executing the
entire duration of the full OFFSET program. The proposer should also describe
similar completed/ongoing efforts theyve undertaken in this area, including
identification of other Government Sponsors.
iii.
Innovative Claims and Deliverables:

Describe the innovative aspects of the project in the context of existing capabilities
and approaches, clearly delineating the uniqueness and benefits of this project in the
context of the state-of-the-art, alternative approaches and other projects from the past
and present. Describe how the proposed project is revolutionary and how it
significantly rises above the current state-of-the-art. Describe the deliverables
associated with the proposed project and any plans to commercialize the technology,
transition it to the customer, or further the work. Discuss the mitigation of any issues
related to sustainment of the technology over its entire lifecycle, assuming the
technology transition plan is successful.
a. Sprint Integration Plan:
Proposers to this BAA should detail an Integration Plan that outlines how the
assembled Swarm Systems Integrator team will anticipate, facilitate, and integrate
third-party components (e.g., swarm tactics), potentially developed by multiple
Swarm Sprinters, into the continuously developing swarm system architecture in the
lead-up to the next capability-based experiment. This Integration Plan may include
details of an interface control document (ICD) or application program interface (API)
BAA# TBD
29
documentation. Such Integration Plans should describe the manner in which a Swarm
Sprinter obtains access to the latest (e.g., beta) release of the architecture; credentials
to the swarm tactics exchange; up-to-date and developer-friendly documentation;
reference implementations of example swarm tactics; and workflow instructions for
swarm tactics submission, verification, feedback, and assessments.
The Integration Plan should also outline the documentation and details required from
the Swarm Sprinter for each submission, which could be in the form of narrative
description, descriptive tags or keywords, preview graphics or animations, and/or
definition of measures of performance and. This information should be used to
populate a searchable, filterable index to enable queries and navigation by other endusers. It is expected that such interactions occur iteratively, with clear demonstration
of close engagements and progress during the different Swarm Sprinters midterm
and final (i.e., at three-month and six-month) milestones.
To provide and foster a developer community, Swarm Systems Integrators should
aim to actively incentivize contributions from Swarm Sprinters with a robust
application programming interface, clear documentation, demonstrated
responsiveness to technical support inquiries, and rich feature sets and tools made
available to support developers. It is possible that different Swarm Sprinters may
prefer and focus their development on different Swarm Systems Architectures
(assuming more than one Swarm Systems Integrator); thus, it is incumbent on each
Swarm Systems Integrator to create a favorable and inviting development
environment so as to attract Swarm Sprinter adoption in order to achieve outlined
program metrics (e.g., aggregation of 100+ swarm tactics).
b. Experimentation Plan:
Given the agile pace of development and integration activities, proposers should
further outline efforts to conduct internal (i.e., separate from DARPA-led CBEs
detailed in Section I.C.1) field experiments to demonstrate progress, mitigate
technical risks, showcase integration activities, and address integration issues that
may arise, ranging from architectural interfaces to Sprint-developed capabilities.
Preliminary experimentation plans should include information of potential test sites
to which proposers have access to conduct physical tests of component and integrated
technologies. These test sites can comprise private (indoor and/or outdoor) facilities,
military or other Government venues with which proposers have or will establish
relationships. The expectation is that performers will actively and frequently use local
field experimentation resources to demonstrate preparedness and progress between
DARPA-led capability experiments.
DARPA will detail test site selection for OFFSET capability-based experiments and
pay for site fees, etc. Performers are responsible for travel and transportation of
equipment, including infrastructure unique to the proposed architecture/testbed
configuration. Details of provided infrastructure and instrumentation at DARPA-
BAA# TBD
30
selected sites will be provided in advance of each CBE, to include experiment

objectives, mission descriptions, and resources available for performer use (e.g.,
network, power, Operational Forces (OPFOR), radio-frequency considerations).
DARPA anticipates that some efforts may require the performer to conduct periodic
human subjects testing as part of evaluating OFFSET systems and user interfaces.
For proposed efforts that will include human subjects testing by the proposer,
evidence of a fully drafted protocol along with a plan for submission and review by
an Institutional Review Board (IRB) must be provided to DARPA as part of the
proposal (include as Appendix X; no limit on page count). Separate protocols may be
required for internal testing of system prototypes with a civilian population and
experimental evaluation of system prototypes with a military population.
c. Data Collection and Management Plan:
DARPA anticipates that a large amount of data will be generated under this program
by each performer and that data analysis will be strengthened by compiling and
integrating information across all performers. Therefore, proposals must include the
description of a plan to share data, as well as software to conduct, extract, and/or
analyze those source data, both internally to the OFFSET performer group and
externally with the broader research community, including approximate timelines for
release of data [11]. Data sharing plans to facilitate sharing and exchange of data will
then be formalized in an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) to be included in
the contract or agreement awarded (see Section VIII.D).
iv.
OFFSET Maturation Plan:

Outline and address an OFFSET Maturation Plan that details the technical approach
for accomplishing the OFFSET program objectives and serves as the basis for their
Statement of Work (SOW), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and Cost Volumes
(described below). The OFFSET Maturation Plan will provide an integrated basis for
maturing the OFFSET demonstration system design and mitigating risk to the
integration product by the end of FY20.
The OFFSET Maturation Plan will:
BAA# TBD
identify, assess, and prioritize critical technologies and system

attributes that constitute the major technical and system integration
risks on the program;
identify major risk reduction tests and demonstrations required to
validate the ability to achieve OFFSET component- and system- level
performance goals, culminating with a full system test at the end of
FY20;
describe each test activity proposed, including rationale for the test,
test objectives, test scale, proposed test facility, and success metrics;
and
provide an assessment of the technical maturity achieved at the end of
each vignette.
31
v.
Personnel, Qualifications, and Commitments:

Provide the qualifications of the proposed team and proposed personnel. The
proposer shall identify key personnel by name and include a description of their role.
Short resumes shall be provided for the Program Manager, Chief Engineer, Chief
Systems Engineer, and Integration Lead, as well as any other personnel deemed
critical to the successful performance of the program.
The proposer shall also identify the number of hours committed for each of these key
personnel in the program. DARPA requires key personnel identified in the proposal
to be assigned as proposed, and the resulting contract/agreement will indicate no
substitution shall be made without prior approval of the Government.
vi.
Management Approach:
Provide a management plan that describes the proposed integration processes and
management approach to support successful OFFSET program execution.
The proposer shall provide an overview of the integration engineering processes to
be used along with the organizational responsibilities and authority for the systems
engineering effort. The proposer shall describe their integration approach to complete
the final OFFSET demonstration system design and ensure that it meets program
objectives. The proposer shall describe how key system knowledge acquired during
the program will be captured, as well as describe the use of key tracking measures to
enable efficient assessment of program progress. The proposer shall also describe
ongoing design update activities, including integration of test results and support to
Government activities.
The management plan shall describe the proposed teaming approach between the
integration team and sprinters to ensure relevant OFFSET design and development
of planning information to support future Government development efforts. The
proposer shall describe how activities will be managed and integrated across
geographically and/or separate team elements. The proposer shall also describe their
approach to subcontractor management, quality control, and security. The proposer
shall describe their proposed level of Government interaction to facilitate efficient
interactions and streamlined decision making.
The management plan shall include the proposed programmatic approach to cost,
schedule, and risk management. Although a formal Earned Value Management
System (EVMS) is not required for the program, the proposer must meet the intent
and describe how they will provide ongoing assessment of technical and
programmatic progress against the program plan, critical path, schedule and cost. The
proposer shall define the content of technical and financial progress reports that
enables efficient program monitoring, tracking, and reporting. Program management
tools should be the same tools used internally to manage the program. No additional
unique information for the Government is desired or required.
BAA# TBD
32
vii.
Relevance to DARPA Mission:

Describe the relevance of the proposed OFFSET integration design to the DARPA
mission. In particular, the proposer should describe the relevance of their OFFSET
Swarm System to potential future swarm applications, including development of
concepts of operations for use of the proposed OFFSET system. The proposer should
characterize the level of technology maturity that will be achieved if their proposed
program is successful and outline the remaining activities that would be required to
fully mature OFFSET for transition efforts.
Potential considerations for longer-term sustainment of the OFFSET-developed
capabilities, to include maintenance and/or sustainment of the swarm system
developer community fostered throughout the OFFSET program, would highlight
avenues for continued development and follow-on engagement that is of interest to
the Government.
viii.
Intellectual Property {no page limit}:

DARPA requires sufficient Government rights to intellectual property developed to
enable to Government to: 1) flexibly brief Government stakeholders regarding
technical progress and accomplishments, 2) allow validation of technical
performance, capabilities, and accomplishments by independent technical
(potentially non-Government) experts, 3) facilitate discussion of technical challenges
and applications with the broader technical community, 4) support wargaming and
analyses of alternatives, and 5) support transition opportunities, including design and
performance data required to support other acquisition activities. It is anticipated that
these latter activities will require the Government to conduct independent analyses,
development, and assessments.
In order to enable transition of OFFSET technologies and concepts to the commercial
sector, certain data items will need to be provided with Unlimited Rights, as defined
below. In general, the Government desires Unlimited Rights on high-level OFFSET
system, subsystem, and operational data; system-level performance; subsystem
operating principles; concepts of employment; and mission support and operations
data. Similar Unlimited Rights for the high-level data requested above should be
retained by the Government for any transition or derived vehicles the performer
investigates for civil and military applications. Additionally, top-level information on
ground and air support equipment, mission support systems, and operations/remotemonitoring centers should be provided with Unlimited Rights.
Proposers responding to this solicitation shall identify all data that it plans to furnish
to the Government under any negotiated Other Transaction agreement in which the
Government will receive less than unlimited rights and assert specific restrictions on
that data. Proposers shall follow the format described below for this stated purpose.
In the event that proposers do not submit the list, the Government will assume that it
automatically has Unlimited Rights to all data generated, developed, and/or
delivered under the OT, unless it is substantiated that development of the data
BAA# TBD
33
occurred with private or mixed funding. If mixed funding is anticipated in the

development of data generated, developed, and/or delivered under an OT agreement,
then proposers may consider identifying the data in question as subject to
Government Purpose Rights (GPR).
For any items for which the proposer asserts data rights less than unlimited rights, the
proposer shall describe the impact of the GPR or limited rights assertion. In other
words, the proposer should describe what data the Government will get, how the
Government will be able to use it, and describe the impact of this data rights assertion
on the Governments ability to transition the program.
Proposers responding to this BAA must submit a separate list using the template
provided within Attachment 6 of all technical data or computer software that will be
furnished to the Government with other than unlimited rights. The Government will
assume unlimited rights if proposers fail to identify any intellectual property
restrictions in their proposals. Include in this section all proprietary claims to results,
demonstration systems, deliverables or systems supporting and/or necessary for the
use of the research, results, demonstration systems and/or deliverables. If no
restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state NONE. It is noted an
assertion of NONE indicates that the Government has unlimited rights to all data
delivered.
ix.
Statement of Work (SOW) {no page limit}:

In plain English, the SOW shall clearly define the technical tasks/subtasks to be
performed throughout the life of this program. The SOW shall be detailed to work
breakdown structure (WBS) level 4. For each task/subtask, the SOW shall include:
A general description of the objective (for each defined task/activity);

A detailed description of the approach to be taken to accomplish each
defined task/activity;
Identification of the primary organization responsible for task execution
(prime, subcontractor, by name, etc.);
The completion criteria for each task/activity, such as a product, event, or
milestone that defines its completion; and
A definition of all deliverables (reports, data, software, documentation,
hardware, demonstration system element, multimedia, etc.) to be provided
to the Government in support of the proposed research tasks/activities.
Include expected delivery date for each deliverable.
Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW or include any

markings placing limitations on distribution on pages containing the SOW.
x.
BAA# TBD
Integrated Master Schedule {no page limit}:

Include an Integrated Master Schedule in Microsoft Project format that details all of
the proposed program activities. This section should include a detailed schedule
showing tasks (including task name, duration, WBS elements, performing
34
organization), milestones and the interrelationships among tasks. The task structure
must be consistent with that in the SOW. Measureable milestones should be clearly
articulated and defined in time relative to the start of the project. This section also
includes a critical path analysis to identify key areas of schedule risk.
xi.
Subcontractor List {no page limit}:

To facilitate Government conflict of interest determinations, proposers are required
to submit a complete list of organizations participating on their team, including all
subcontractors and their roles.
xii.
Milestone and Deliverable Summary Table {no page limit}:

The Milestone and Deliverable Summary table should break down all proposed
major reviews and test events for completing the OFFSET program and the
deliverables associated with the events. A template Milestone and Deliverable
Summary Table can be found in Attachment 3.
B.2.b. Volume II, Cost Proposal

This volume is mandatory and must include all listed components. No page limit is specified for
this volume.
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
BAA number (TBD)

Technical area
Lead organization name
Type of organization, selected among the following categories:
Large Business Small Disadvantaged Business Other Small Business
HBCU
Minority Institution
Other Educational
Other Nonprofit
(5) Proposers 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
(9) Administrative point of contact to include: salutation, last name, first name, street
(10) Total funds requested from DARPA separated by basic award and option(s) (if
any), and the amount of cost share (if any)
BAA# TBD
35
(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
(15) Commercial and Government Cage Entity (CAGE) code
(16) Date proposal was submitted
(17) TIN number
(18) CAGE Code; and
(19) Subawardee Information
ii.
Cost Summaries Table:

Provide a single-page summary table for the base and two options proposed, broken
down by fiscal year listing totals for labor, materials, other direct costs (ODCs),
indirect costs (overhead, fringe, general and administrative (G&A)), and any
proposed fee for the project. Include costs for each task in each fiscal year of the
project by prime and major subcontractors, total cost and proposed cost share, if
applicable.
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.
Table 2: Example of the cost summary table, template included as Attachment 3
SOW Task
1.1.0 <Phase 1 Task 1 name>
Duration
Intensity
(months)
(hrs/mo)
Sr
Mid
Jr
Labor Hours
Total
135
240
680
24
944
1.1.1 <Subtask 1.1.1 name>
90
80
280
195
160
400
24
Conslt
Total
200
1,144
360
200
560
584
584
385
108
400
1,800
2,308
1,400
3,708
656
48
320
1,600
1,968
600
2,568
113
Phase 1 Total Hours

Phase 1 Costs First column is prime, second is
60
:
348
80
200
1,080
1,824
100
340
800
3,252
1,400
1,140
200
4,652
Travel $ 44,000 $ 12,000 $ 2,000
total subcontractor, third is total consultant, fourth is total Materials & Equipment $
176
560
8,000
64
800
100
100
$ 58,000
$
8,000
1,000
51
96
240
24
360
100
100
560
110
80
320
40
440
440
417
180
520
1,800
2,500
1,240
3,740
435
140
400
1,200
1,740
400
2,140
190
Phase 2 Total Hours

Phase 2 Costs First column is prime, second is
40
:
356
120
600
1,080
1,864
Project Total Hours

Project Total Costs First column is prime, second is
760
:
1,340
3,300
704
2,160
3,688
4,000
6,552
1,600
100
4,640
2,740
300
$ 61,000
$
4,000
9,292
Travel $ 91,000 $ 24,000 $ 4,000 $ 119,000
total subcontractor, third is total consultant, fourth is total Materials & Equipment $ 12,000
840
Travel $ 47,000 $ 12,000 $ 2,000
total subcontractor, third is total consultant, fourth is total Materials & Equipment $
BAA# TBD
SubC
$ 12,000
36
iii.
Cost Details:
The proposer should include supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient
detail (e.g., cost for each task by month) to substantiate the summary cost estimates
and should include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting
documentation.
Direct Labor: Provide labor categories, rates and hours. Justify rates
by providing examples of equivalent rates for equivalent talent, past
commercial or Government rates or Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) approved rates.
Indirect Costs: Identify all indirect cost rates (such as fringe benefits,
labor overhead, material overhead, G&A, etc.) and the basis for each.
Materials: Provide an itemized list of all proposed materials,

equipment, and supplies for each year, including quantities, unit
prices, proposed vendors (if known), and the basis of estimate (e.g.,
quotes, prior purchases, catalog price lists, etc.).
Travel: Provide a breakout of travel costs, including the purpose and

number of trips, origin and destination(s), duration, and number of
travelers per trip.
Subcontractor/Consultant Costs: Provide the above information for

each proposed subcontractor/consultant. If the proposer has conducted
a cost or price analysis to determine reasonableness, submit a copy of
this along with the subcontractor proposal.
The proposer is responsible for the compilation and submission of all
subcontractor/consultant cost proposals. Proposal submissions will not
be considered complete until the Government has received all
subcontractor/consultant cost proposals.
Please note that a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) or similar
budgetary estimate is not considered a fully qualified subcontract cost
proposal submission. Inclusion of a ROM or similar budgetary
estimate, or failure to provide a subcontract proposal, will result in the
proposal being deemed non-compliant.
iv.
BAA# TBD
Other Direct Costs: Provide an itemized breakout and explanation of

all other anticipated direct costs.
Subawardee Proposals
The awardee is responsible for compiling and providing all subawardee proposals for
the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)/Grants Officer (GO)/Agreements Officer
(AO), as applicable. Subawardee proposals should include Interdivisional Work
Transfer Agreements (ITWA) or similar arrangements. Where the effort consists of
37
multiple portions that could reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, these
should be identified as options with separate cost estimates for each.
All proprietary subawardee proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of
detail as that required of the awardees proposal and that cannot be uploaded with the
proposed awardeess proposal, shall be provided to the Government either by the
awardee or by the subawardee organization when the proposal is submitted.
Subawardee proposals submitted to the Government by the proposed awardee should
be submitted via DARPA's BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil) by the subawardee.
See Section IV.B.5.b. of this BAA for proposal submission information.
v.
Other Transaction Requests

The Government may award either a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based
contract or an Other Transaction for Prototype (OT) agreement for prototype system
development.
All proposers requesting an Other Transaction must include a detailed list of
milestones. Each milestone must include the following:
milestone description,
completion criteria,
due date, and
payment/funding schedule (to include, if cost share is proposed, awardee
and Government share amounts).
It is noted that, at a minimum, milestones should relate directly to accomplishment

of program technical metrics as defined in the BAA and/or the proposers
proposal. Agreement type, expenditure or fixed-price based, will be subject to
negotiation by the Agreements Officer. Do not include proprietary data.
B.3. Proprietary and Security Information
B.3.a. Proprietary Markings
Proposers are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. Submissions
containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such
information clearly marked with a label such as Proprietary. NOTE: Confidential is a
classification marking used to control the dissemination of U.S. Government National Security
Information as dictated in Executive Order 13526 and should not be used to identify proprietary
business information.
B.3.b.
BAA# TBD
Security Information
38
i.
Program Security Information

Proposers should include with their proposal any proposed solution(s) to program
security requirements unique to this program. Common program security
requirements include but are not limited to: operational security (OPSEC)
contracting/sub-contracting plans; foreign participation or materials utilization
plans; program protection plans (which may entail the following) manufacturing
and integration plans; range utilization and support plans (air, sea, land, space, and
cyber); data dissemination plans; asset transportation plans; classified test activity
plans; disaster recovery plans; classified material / asset disposition plans and
public affairs / communications plans.
ii.
Unclassified Submissions
DARPA anticipates that submissions received under this BAA will be unclassified.
However, should a proposer wish to submit classified information, an unclassified email must be sent to the BAA mailbox (OFFSET@darpa.mil) requesting submission
instructions from the Technical Office PSO. If a determination is made that the award
instrument may result in access to classified information, a SCG and/or DD Form
254 will be issued by DARPA and attached as part of the award.
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.
B.4. Additional Proposal Information

B.4.a. Human Research Subjects/Animal Use
Proposers that anticipate involving Human Research Subjects or Animal Use must comply with
the approval procedures detailed at www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
BAA#TBD
39
B.4.b. Approved Cost Accounting System Documentation

Proposers that do not have a Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) complaint accounting system
considered adequate for determining accurate costs that are negotiating a cost-type procurement
contract must complete an SF 1408. For more information on CAS compliance, see
http://www.dcaa.mil/cas.html. To facilitate this process, proposers should complete the SF 1408
found at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778 and submit the completed form with
the proposal. To complete the form, check the boxes on the second page, then provide a narrative
explanation of your accounting system to supplement the checklist on page one. For more
information, see http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_system_adequacy_checklist.html.
B.4.c. Small Business Subcontracting Plan
Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and FAR 19.702(a)(1),
each proposer who submits a contract proposal and includes subcontractors might be required to
submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal. The plan format is outlined in FAR 19.704.
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.
B.4.e. Grant Abstract
Per Section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), all
grant awards must be posted on a public website in a searchable format. To comply with this
requirement, proposers requesting grant awards must submit a maximum one (1) page abstract that
may be publicly posted and explains the program or project to the public. The proposer should
sign the bottom of the abstract confirming the information in the abstract is approved for public
release. Proposers are advised to provide both a signed PDF copy, as well as an editable (e.g.,
Microsoft word) copy. Abstracts contained in grant proposals that are not selected for award will
not be publicly posted.
B.4.f. Intellectual Property
All proposers must provide a good faith representation that the proposer either owns or possesses
the appropriate licensing rights to all intellectual property that will be utilized under the proposed
effort. The Government desires unlimited data rights for all software source code developed at
taxpayer expense so that it can release the software as open-source software (OSS) to implement
a software maintenance philosophy of OSS community development (per DFARS 227.72032(b)(1)).
For the purposes of this solicitation, the following definitions for contracting apply:
1) Unlimited rights means rights to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or
disclose data in whole or in part, in any manner, and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have
or authorize others to do so.
2) Government purpose rights means the rights to use, duplicate, or disclose Data, in whole or
in part and in any manner, for Government purposes only, and to have or permit others to do
so for Government purposes only.
BAA# TBD
40
3) Limited rights means the rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or
disclose data, in whole or in part, within the Government. The Government may not, without
the written permission of the party asserting limited rights, release or disclose the data outside
the Government, use the data for manufacture, or authorize the data to be used by another
party, except that the Government may reproduce, release, or disclose such data or authorize
the use or reproduction of the data by persons outside the Government if
i) The reproduction, release, disclosure, or use is
(1) Necessary for emergency repair and overhaul; or
(2) A release or disclosure to
(a) A covered Government support contractor in performance of its covered
Government support contract for use, modification, reproduction, performance,
display, or release or disclosure to a person authorized to receive limited rights
data; or
(b) A foreign government, of data other than detailed manufacturing or process
data, when use of such data by the foreign government is in the interest of the
Government and is required for evaluational or informational purposes;
ii) The recipient of the data is subject to a prohibition on the further reproduction, release,
disclosure, or use of the data; and
iii) The contractor or subcontractor asserting the restriction is notified of such
reproduction, release, disclosure, or use.
4) Data means recorded information, regardless of form or method of recording, which includes
but is not limited to, technical data, software (including executable code), maskworks and trade
secrets. The term does not include financial, administrative, cost, pricing or management
information and does not include subject inventions.
5) Covered Government Support Contractor means a contractor under a contract, the primary
purpose of which is to furnish independent and impartial advice or technical assistance directly
to the Government in support of the Governments management and oversight of a program or
effort (rather than to directly furnish an end item or service to accomplish a program or effort),
provided that the contractor:
i) Is not affiliated with the prime contractor or a first-tier subcontractor on the program
or effort, or with any direct competitor of such prime contractor or any such first-tier
subcontractor in furnishing end items or services of the type developed or produced on
the program or effort; and
ii) Receives access to Data for performance of a Government contract.
iii) Enters into a nondisclosure agreement with the Performer, if required.
i.
For Procurement Contracts

Proposers responding to this BAA requesting procurement contracts will need to
complete
the
certifications
at
DFARS
252.227-7017.
See
http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa for further information. If no
restrictions are intended, the proposer should state NONE. The table below
captures the requested information:
Technical Data
Computer
Software to be
BAA# TBD
Summary of
Intended Use in
Basis for
Assertion
Asserted Rights
Category
Name of Person
Asserting
Restrictions
41
Furnished with
Restrictions
the Conduct of
the Research
(LIST)
(NARRATIVE)
(LIST)
(LIST)
(LIST)
ii.
For All Non-Procurement Contracts

Proposers responding to this BAA requesting a Grant, Cooperative Agreement,
Technology Investment Agreement, or Other Transaction for Prototypes shall follow
the applicable rules and regulations governing these various award instruments, but,
in all cases, should appropriately identify any potential restrictions on the
Governments use of any Intellectual Property contemplated under the award
instrument in question. This includes both Noncommercial Items and Commercial
Items. Proposers are encouraged use a format similar to that described in Paragraph
above. If no restrictions are intended, then the proposer should state NONE.
B.4.g.
System for Award Management (SAM) Registration and Universal Identifier

Requirements
All proposers must be registered in SAM unless exempt per FAR 4.1102. FAR 52.204-7,
System for Award Management and FAR 52.204-13, System for Award Management
Maintenance are incorporated into this BAA. See www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa
for further information.
B.5. Submission Information
All times listed herein are in Eastern Time. Proposers are warned that submission deadlines as
outlined herein are strictly enforced. When planning their response to this solicitation, proposers
should take into account that some parts of the submission process may take from one business
day to one month to complete (e.g., registering for a DUNS number or TIN).
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
confirmation is received within two business days, please contact the BAA Administrator at
OFFSET@darpa.mil to verify receipt. DARPA intends to use electronic mail correspondence
regarding this Broad Agency Announcement. Submissions may not be submitted by fax or e-mail;
any so sent will be disregarded.
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.
BAA# TBD
42
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.: TBD) 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.
B.5.a. Abstracts Submission
Abstracts must be submitted per the instructions outlined herein and received by DARPA no later
than TBD. Abstracts received after this time and date may not be reviewed.
Unclassified abstracts sent in response to this BAA may be submitted via DARPA's BAA Website
(https://baa.darpa.mil). Please refer to the Proposal Submission section below for additional
details. All abstracts submitted electronically through the DARPA BAA Submission website must
be uploaded as zip files (.zip or .zipx extension). The final zip file should only contain the
document(s) requested herein and must not exceed 50 MB in size. Only one zip file will be
accepted per abstract; abstracts not uploaded as zip files will be rejected by DARPA.
B.5.b. Proposal Submission
The full proposal package, including all applicable attachments and any proprietary subcontractor
cost proposals, must be submitted per the instructions outlined herein and received by DARPA no
later than TBD. Proposals received after this time and date may not be reviewed.
i. For Proposers Requesting Grants or Cooperative Agreements
Proposers requesting grants or cooperative agreements may submit proposals through one of the
following methods: (1) hard copy mailed directly to DARPA; or (2) electronic upload per the
instructions at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/apply-for-grants.html. Grant or cooperative
agreement proposals may not be submitted through any other means. If proposers intend to use
Grants.gov as their means of submission, then they muist submit their entire proposal through
Grants.gov; applications cannot be submitted in part to Grants.gov and in part as a hard-copy.
Proposers using the Grants.gov do not submit paper proposals in addition to the Grants.gov
electronic submission.
BAA# TBD
43
(1) Grants.gov Submissions: Grants.gov requires proposers to complete a one-time

registration process before a proposal can be electronically submitted. First
time registration can take between three business days and four weeks. For
more
information
about
registering
for
Grants.gov,
see
http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
(2) Hard-copy Submissions: Proposers electing to submit grant or cooperative
agreement proposals as hard copies must complete the SF 424 R&R form
(Application for Federal Assistance,) available on the Grants.gov website
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_SF424_2_0-V2.0.pdf
ii.
For Proposers Requesting Procurement Contracts or OTs and Submitting to

a DARPA-approved Proposal Submissions Website
Unclassified proposals sent in response to this BAA may be submitted via DARPAs
BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil). Note: If an account has already been created
for the DARPA BAA Website, this account may be reused. If no account currently
exists for the DARPA BAA Website, visit the website to complete the two-step
registration process. Submitters will need to register for an Extranet account (via the
form at the URL listed above) and wait for two separate e-mails containing a
username and temporary password. After accessing the Extranet, submitters may
then create an account for the DARPA BAA website (via the Register your
Organization link along the left side of the homepage), view submission
instructions, and upload/finalize the proposal. Proposers using the DARPA BAA
Website may encounter heavy traffic on the submission deadline date; proposers
should start this process as early as possible.
All unclassified concepts submitted electronically through DARPAs BAA Website
must be uploaded as zip files (.zip or .zipx extension). The final zip file should be no
greater than 50 MB in size. Only one zip file will be accepted per submission, and
submissions not uploaded as zip files will be rejected by DARPA.
Classified submissions and proposals requesting grants or cooperative agreements
should NOT be submitted through DARPAs BAA Website (https://baa.darpa.mil),
though proposers will likely still need to visit https://baa.darpa.mil to register their
organization (or verify an existing registration) to ensure the BAA office can verify
and finalize their submission.
Technical support for DARPAs BAA Website may be reached at
BAAT_Support@darpa.mil, and is typically available during regular business hours,
Eastern Time.
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
BAA# TBD
44
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 TBD, proposer organization, proposal title (short title
recommended), and Copy _ of _.
B.5.c. Abstract Submission Responses
Refer to Section VI.A.1 for DARPA response to abstract submissions.
B.5.d. Proposal Submission Responses
Refer to Section VI.A.2 for how DARPA will notify proposers as to whether or not their proposal
has been selected for potential award.
C.
Funding Restrictions
Not Applicable.
D.
Other Submission Requirements
Not Applicable.
V.
Application Review Information
A.
Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance:
A.1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit
The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete.
The proposed technical team that has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed
tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical
sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final outcome that achieves the
goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal identifies major technical risks and planned
mitigation efforts are clearly defined and feasible. The Government will make this evaluation
based on an examination of several areas. The proposers technical approach, to include
development of the Swarm Systems Architecture to facilitate the generation, interaction with, and
BAA# TBD
45
integration of swarm tactics, will be reviewed to assess the overall system concept and the
feasibility of the proposed system to achieve DARPAs vision and meet or exceed the desired
program objectives.
A.2. Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission
The potential contributions of the proposed effort are relevant to the national technology base.
Specifically, DARPAs mission is to make pivotal early technology investments that create or
prevent strategic surprise for U.S. National Security.
For Swarm Systems Integrator proposals, ability to interact with Swarm Sprinters and other
performers will be evaluated in accordance with the DARPA Mission.
As part of DARPAs 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 Governments
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.
The proposed schedule aggressively pursues performance metrics in an efficient time frame that
accurately accounts for the anticipated workload. The proposed schedule identifies and mitigates
any potential schedule risk.
A.4. Proposers Capabilities and/or Related Experience
The proposer's prior experience in similar efforts clearly demonstrates an ability to deliver products
that meet the proposed technical performance within the proposed budget and schedule. The
proposed team has the expertise to manage the cost and schedule.
Similar efforts
completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area are fully described including identification of other
Government sponsors.
BAA# TBD
46
B.
Review of Proposals
B.1. Review Process

It is the policy of DARPA to ensure impartial, equitable, comprehensive proposal evaluations
based on the evaluation criteria listed in Section V.A.1-V.A.34 and to select the source (or sources)
whose offer meets the Government's technical, policy, and programmatic goals.
DARPA will conduct a scientific/technical review of each conforming proposal. Conforming
proposals comply with all requirements detailed in this BAA; proposals that fail to do so may be
deemed non-conforming and may be removed from consideration. Proposals will not be evaluated
against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement.
DARPAs intent is to review proposals as soon as possible after they arrive; however, proposals
may be reviewed periodically for administrative reasons.
Award(s) will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous
to the Government, consistent with instructions and evaluation criteria specified in the BAA
herein, and availability of funding.
B.2. Handling of Source Selection Information
DARPA policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and
3.104), and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Restrictive notices
notwithstanding, during the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support
contractors for administrative purposes and/or to assist with technical evaluation. All DARPA
support contractors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing DARPAsponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
Subject to the restrictions set forth in FAR 37.203(d), input on technical aspects of the proposals
may be solicited by DARPA from non-Government consultants/experts who are strictly bound by
the appropriate nondisclosure requirements.
B.3. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS)
Per 41 U.S.C. 2313, as implemented by FAR 9.103 and 2 CFR 200.205, prior to making an
award above the simplified acquisition threshold, DARPA is required to review and consider any
information available through the designated integrity and performance system (currently
FAPIIS). Awardees have the opportunity to comment on any information about themselves
entered in the database, and DARPA will consider any comments, along with other information in
FAPIIS or other systems prior to making an award.
VI.
Award Administration Information
A.
Selection Notices and Notifications
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 DARPAs
response to an abstract, proposers may submit a full proposal. DARPA will review all full
BAA# TBD
47
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.
B.
Administrative and National Policy Requirements
B.1. Meeting and Travel Requirements

There will be an OFFSET Program Kickoff meeting held at DARPA (Arlington, VA), and all key
participants are required to attend. Performers should also anticipate regular technical interchange
and integration meetings, periodic site visits at the Program Managers discretion, and biannual
OFFSET field experimentation events. Swarm Systems Integrators should also plan travel to all
Sprint kickoff meetings, schedules to be determined as the program progresses.
B.2. FAR and DFARS Clauses
Solicitation clauses in the FAR and DFARS relevant to procurement contracts and FAR and
DFARS clauses that may be included in any resultant procurement contracts are incorporated
herein and can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
B.3. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on Non-DoD Information Systems
Further information on Controlled Unclassified Information on Non-DoD Information Systems is
incorporated herein can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
B.4. Representations and Certifications
If a procurement contract is contemplated, prospective awardees will need to be registered in the
SAM database prior to award and complete electronic annual representations and certifications
consistent with FAR guidance at 4.1102 and 4.1201; the representations and certifications can be
found at www.sam.gov. Supplementary representations and certifications can be found at
www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.
B.5. Terms and Conditions (for grants and cooperative agreements only)
A link to the DoD General Research Terms and Conditions for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements and supplemental agency terms and conditions can be found at www.darpa.mil/workwith-us/contract-management#GrantsCooperativeAgreements.
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
BAA# TBD
48
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.1. Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF)

Performers will be required to submit invoices for payment directly to https://wawf.eb.mil/, unless
an exception applies. Performers must register in WAWF prior to any award under this BAA.
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).
VII.
Agency Contacts
DARPA will use e-mail for all technical and administrative correspondence regarding this
solicitation.
Technical POC: Timothy Chung, Program Manager, DARPA/TTO
Solicitation E-mail: OFFSET@darpa.mil
Solicitation Mailing Address:

DARPA/TTO
ATTN: TBD
675 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203-2114
VIII. Other Information

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.
See DARPA-SN-17-02 posted at https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-SN-1702/listing.html for all details. Attendance at the OFFSET Proposers Day was voluntary and was
not required to propose to this solicitation. Materials presented at the Proposers Day are posted at
http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities/.
B.
Collaborations and Teaming
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:
BAA# TBD
49
Contact information to include name, organization, and e-mail
A brief description of the proposers technical competencies
All profiles must be submitted and accessed through the OFFSET Teaming website,
http://events.sa-meetings.com/OFFSETTeaming. Specific content, communications, networking,
and team formation are the sole responsibility of the participants. Neither DARPA nor the DoD
endorses the information and organizations contained in the consolidated teaming profile
document, nor does DARPA or the DoD exercise any responsibility for improper dissemination
of the teaming profiles.
C.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Administrative, technical, and contractual questions should be e-mailed to OFFSET@darpa.mil.

All questions must be in English and must include the name, e-mail address, and the telephone
number of a point of contact.
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.
D.
Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) Clause
This same or similar clause will be included in all awards against DARPA BAA# TBD
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
Associate Contractors to achieve complete compatibility and to prevent unnecessary duplication
of effort. By executing this contract, the Contractor assumes the responsibilities of an Associate
Contractor. For the purpose of this clause, the term Contractor includes subsidiaries, affiliates, and
organizations under the control of the contractor (e.g., subcontractors).
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:
BAA# TBD
50
(1) Maintenance of a close liaison and working relationship;

(2) Maintenance of a free and open information network with all Government-identified
Associate Contractors;
(3) Delineation of detailed interface responsibilities;
(4) Entering into a written agreement with the other Associate Contractors setting forth
the substance and procedures relating to the foregoing, and promptly providing the
Agreements Officer/Procuring Contracting Officer with a copy of same; and,
(5) Receipt of proprietary information from the Associate Contractor and transmittal of
Contractor proprietary information to the Associate Contractors subject to any applicable
proprietary information exchange agreements between associate contractors when, in
either case, those actions are necessary for the performance of either.
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. 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.
F.
List of Attachments
Attachment 1 Proposal Summary Slide
Attachment 2 Proposal Template Level of Effort Table
Attachment 3 Proposal Template Milestones and Deliverables

Summary Table
Attachment 4 Proposal Template Technical and Management Volume
Attachment 5 Proposal Template Cost Volume
Attachment 6 Proposal Template Administrative and National Policy

Requirements
Attachment 7 DARPA Form 105 SCG request form
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.
BAA# TBD
51
[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.
[12] T. M. Laing, S.-L. Ng, A. Tomlinson, and K. M. Martin, Handbook of Research on
Design, Control, and Modeling of Swarm Robotics. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2016,
ch. Security in Swarm Robotics, pp. 42-66.
[13] U.S. Department of the Army. The Infantry Rifle Company. Army Field Manual 3-21.10.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, July 27, 2006.
[14] Headquarters US Marine Corps, Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain, MCWP 335.3 (Washington, DC: Headquarters US Marine Corps, April 26, 1998).
[15] B. Vogt, M. Megiveron, and R. Smith, Early Synthetic Prototyping: When We Build It,
Will They Come, in I/ITSEC Proceedings, 2015
BAA# TBD
52

Offset Baa Draft

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Offset Baa Draft

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Broad Agency Announcement

OFFensive Swarm Enabled Tactics (OFFSET)

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

Funding Opportunity Description ........................................................................................ 5

II. Award Information............................................................................................................. 21

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

Review of Proposals ................................................................................................... 47

VI. Award Administration Information................................................................................ 47

Agency Contacts ............................................................................................................ 49

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

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

Funding Opportunity Title OFFensive Swarm Enabled Tactics (OFFSET)

Announcement Type Initial Announcement

Funding Opportunity Number TBD

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 12.910 Research and

Total amount anticipated to be awarded Approximately $14M

Anticipated individual awards DARPA intends to award up to two Swarm Systems

Types of instruments that may be awarded Procurement contract, grant, cooperative

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

Funding Opportunity Description

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

An unprecedented confluence of advanced technologies is unleashing transformative capabilities,

Swarm autonomy encompasses adaptive, complex, collective behaviors for intelligent

Human-swarm teaming highlights the need and

Swarm perception involves large-scale, distributed

Swarm networking pertains to adaptive, resilient,

Swarm logistics addresses both hardware and

Figure 1: Five key enablers for swarm system

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

In conjunction with proposed narrative concepts of deployment and concepts of employment of

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

an extensible game-based architecture to enable design and integration of swarm tactics

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

agile game development with open-source game engines

robotic systems integration (i.e., real-world hardware, software, and communications)

human/cognitive interactions, including user experience design and evaluation

multi-robot systems and collaborative autonomy algorithm development

online community development

toolchains for distributed software, data, and computation (e.g., Internet-of-Things)

statistical experimental design and simulation analysis for autonomy assessment

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFSET is structured as a 42-month program effort, with six biannual capability-based

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

General Award Information

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

A.1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)

Agency Supplemental OCI Policy

The name of the DARPA office receiving the support;

OFFENSIVE SWARM-ENABLED TACTICS (OFFSET)