DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY (DARPA)17.3 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Proposal Submission Instructions

Proposers responding to DARPA topics listed in this Announcement must follow all instructions provided in the DoD Program Announcement AND the supplementary DARPA instructions contained in this section.

IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING THESE INSTRUCTIONS: These instructions only apply to proposals submitted in response to DARPA 17.3 Phase I topics.

IntroductionDARPA’s mission is to prevent technological surprise for the United States and to create technological surprise for its adversaries. The DARPA SBIR Program is designed to provide small, high-tech businesses and academic institutions the opportunity to propose radical, innovative, high-risk approaches to address existing and emerging national security threats; thereby supporting DARPA’s overall strategy to bridge the gap between fundamental discoveries and the provision of new military capabilities.

The responsibility for implementing DARPA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program rests with the Small Business Programs Office (SBPO).

DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCYAttention: DIRO/SBPO

675 North Randolph StreetArlington, VA 22203-2114

sbir@darpa.milhttp://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses

System RequirementsUse of the DARPA SBIR/STTR Information Portal (SSIP) is MANDATORY. Proposers will be required to authenticate into the SSIP (via the DARPA Extranet) to retrieve their selection decision notice, to request technical evaluation narratives, and to upload reports (awarded contracts only). DARPA SBPO will automatically create an extranet account for new users and send the SSIP URL, authentication credentials, and login instructions no later than 90 days AFTER the 17.3 DoD Program Announcement has closed. DARPA extranet accounts will ONLY be created for the individual named as the Corporate Official (CO) on the proposal coversheet. Proposers may not request accounts for additional users at this time.

WARNING: The Corporate Official (CO) e-mail address (from the proposal Cover Sheet) will be used to create a DARPA Extranet account. Updates to Corporate Official e-mail after proposal submission may cause significant delays in communication retrieval and contract negotiation (if selected).

Notification of Proposal ReceiptWithin seven (7) business days after the DoD Program Announcement closing date, the individual named as the “Corporate Official” on the Proposal Cover Sheet will receive a separate e-mail from sbir@darpa.mil acknowledging receipt for each proposal received. Please make note of the topic number and proposal number for your records.

DARPA - 1

Notification of Proposal StatusThe selection decision notice will be available no later than 90 days after the DoD Program Announcement close. The individual named as the “Corporate Official” on the Proposal Cover Sheet will receive an email for each proposal submitted from sbir@darpa.mil with instructions for retrieving their official notification from the SSIP. Please read each notification carefully and note the proposal number and topic number referenced. The CO must retrieve the letter from the SSIP 30 days from the date the e-mail is sent.

After 30 days the CO must make a written request to sbir@darpa.mil for the selection decision notice. The request must explain why the proposer was unable to retrieve the selection decision notice from the SSIP within the original 30-day notification period. Please also refer to the DoD Program Announcement.

Technical Evaluation NarrativeDARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer in accordance with the SBA Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4. The technical evaluation narrative will be available for viewing by the Corporate Official listed on the Proposal Cover Sheet at the time that the decision notice is retrieved.

Protest ProceduresRefer to the DoD Program Announcement for procedures to protest the Announcement.

Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted to: DARPAContracts Management Office (CMO)675 N. Randolph StreetArlington, VA 22203E-mail: scott.ulrey@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil

Discretionary Technical Assistance (DTA)DARPA has implemented the Transition and Commercialization Support Program (TCSP) to provide commercialization assistance to SBIR and/or STTR awardees in Phase I and/or Phase II. Proposers awarded funding for use of an outside vendor for discretionary technical assistance (DTA) are excluded from participating in TCSP.

DTA requests must be explained in detail with the cost estimate and provide purpose and objective (clear identification of need for assistance), provider’s contact information (name of provider; point of contact; details on its unique skills/experience in providing this assistance), and cost of assistance (clearly identified dollars and hours proposed or other arrangement details). The cost cannot be subject to any profit or fee by the requesting firm. In addition, the DTA provider may not be the requesting firm itself, an affiliate or investor of the requesting firm, or a subcontractor or consultant of the requesting firm otherwise required as part of the paid portion of the research effort (e.g., research partner).

Proposers requesting DTA funding must complete the following:1. Indicate in question 17 of the proposal coversheet that you request DTA funding and input

proposed cost of DTA (in space provided). 2. Provide a one-page description of the vendor you will use and the technical assistance you will

receive. The description should be included as the last page of the Technical Volume. This description will not count against the 20-page limit of the technical volume and will NOT be evaluated.

3. Enter the total proposed DTA cost, which shall not exceed $5,000, under the “Discretionary Technical Assistance” line along with a detailed cost breakdown under “Explanatory material relating to the cost proposal” via the online cost proposal.

DARPA - 2

Approval of DTA is not guaranteed and is subject to review of the Contracting Officer. Refer to the DoD Program Announcement for additional information.

Phase I Duration and Cost GuidelinesRefer to the Phase I description in each topic for the duration and cost guidelines. Propose the appropriate duration and cost needed to accomplish the work.

Phase I OptionDARPA has implemented the use of a Phase I Option that may be exercised to fund interim Phase I activities while a Phase II contract is being negotiated. The Phase I Option covers activities over a period of up to four months and should describe appropriate initial Phase II activities that may lead to the successful demonstration of a product or technology. The statement of work for the Phase I Option counts toward the 20-page limit for the Technical Volume.

Commercialization StrategyDARPA is equally interested in dual use commercialization of SBIR project results to the U.S. military, the private sector market, or both, and expects explicit discussion of key activities to achieve this result in the commercialization strategy part of the proposal. Phase I is the time to plan for and begin transition and commercialization activities. The small business must convey an understanding of the preliminary transition path or paths to be established during the Phase I project.

The elements below are intended to REPLACE the instructions provided in the DoD Program Announcement.

The Phase I commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages, and will NOT count against the 20-page proposal limit. It should be the last section of the technical volume and include the following elements:

1. Problem or Needs Statement. Briefly describe the problem, need, or requirement, and its significance relevant to a DoD application and/or a private sector application that the SBIR project results would address.

2. Potential Product(s), Application(s), and Customer(s). Identify potential products and applications, DoD end-users, Federal customers, and/or private sector customers who would likely use the technology. Provide specific information on the market need the technology will address and the size of the market.

3. Business Model and Funding. Include anticipated business model; potential private sector and federal partners the company has identified to support transition and commercialization activities; and the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) expected at the end of the Phase I. Also include a schedule showing the quantitative commercialization results from this SBIR project that your company expects to achieve.

4. Preliminary Phase II Strategy. Include key proposed milestones anticipated during Phase II such as: prototype development, laboratory and systems testing, integration, testing in operational environment, and demonstrations.

OPTIONAL: Advocacy Letters—Feedback received from potential Commercial and/or DoD customers and

other end-users regarding their interest in the technology to support their capability gaps. Letters of Intent/Commitment—Relationships established, feedback received, support and

commitment for the technology with one or more of the following: Commercial customer, DoD PM/PEO, a Defense Prime, or vendor/supplier to the Primes and/or other vendors/suppliers identified as having a potential role in the integration of the technology into fielded systems/products or those under development.

DARPA - 3

Advocacy Letters and Letters of Intent/Commitment are optional, do NOT count against any page limit, and should ONLY be submitted to substantiate any transition or commercialization claims made in the commercialization strategy. Please DO NOT submit these letters just for the sake of including them in your proposal. Letters that are faxed or e-mailed will NOT be accepted. Please note: In accordance with section 3-209 of DOD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, letters of endorsement from government personnel will NOT be accepted.

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

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

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.

In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the BAA evaluation criteria and funding availability.

The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan. If the Government determines that a proposer failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of DARPA support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

Phase I Proposal ChecklistA complete proposal must contain the following four volumes:

1. Volume 1: Cover Sheet. Enter complete and accurate information. Propose separate costs for the base and option periods.

2. Volume 2: Technical Volume.

DARPA - 4

Ensure this volume begins on page 1 and all pages of the proposal are numbered consecutively.

Ensure this volume does not exceed 20 pages (not including the commercialization strategy or DTA). Pages in excess of the 20-page limit will not receive consideration during evaluation.

Include documentation required for DTA (if proposed). 3. Volume 3: Cost Volume.

Use the online cost proposal. Propose separate costs for the base and option periods, and ensure the amounts entered in

the Cost Volume match the amounts entered on the Coversheet. Explain in detail subcontractor, material and travel costs. Use the "Explanatory Material

Field" in the DoD Cost Volume worksheet for this information. Ensure proposed DTA does not exceed authorized amount, and provide required

documentation. 4. Volume 4: Company Commercialization Report.

Follow requirements specified in the DoD Program Announcement.5. Submission:

Upload four completed volumes electronically through the DoD submission site before the closing date specified in the DoD Program Announcement.

Review submission after upload to ensure that all pages have transferred correctly and do not contain unreadable characters. Contact the DoD Help Desk immediately with any problems.

Submit proposal before 8:00 P.M. on the closing date specified in the DoD Program Announcement.

Phase I Evaluation CriteriaPhase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the DoD ProgramAnnouncement.

The proposer's attention is directed to the fact that non-Government advisors to the Government may review and provide support in proposal evaluations during source selection. Non-government advisors may have access to the proposer's proposals, may be utilized to review proposals, and may provide comments and recommendations to the Government's decision makers. These advisors will not establish final assessments of risk and will not rate or rank proposer's proposals. They are also expressly prohibited from competing for DARPA SBIR or STTR awards in the SBIR/STTR topics they review and/or provide comments on to the Government. All advisors are required to comply with procurement integrity laws and are required to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements and Rules of Conduct/Conflict of Interest statements. Non-Government technical consultants/experts will not have access to proposals that are labeled by their proposers as "Government Only".

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals that are selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review. Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords are subject to revision and/or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions of proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords may appear on the DoD SBIR/STTR awards website (https://sbir.defensebusiness.org) and/or the SBA’s SBIR/STTR award site (https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/award/all).

Phase II Proposal

DARPA - 5

All proposers awarded a Phase I contract under this announcement will receive a notification letter with instructions for preparing a Phase II Proposal and a deadline for submission. Visit http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses/participate-sbir-sttr-program for more information regarding the Phase II proposal process.

DARPA - 6

DARPA SBIR 17.3 Topic Index

SB173-001 Wearable Ultrasound for Imaging and ModulationSB173-002 Nonlinear Plasmonic Structures and DevicesSB173-003 Mitigating Data-Oriented Application Exploits via Application Data SandboxingSB173-004 Design Tools for Hardware Trojan Detection and MitigationSB173-005 Design of and Rapid Manufacturing Technology for a Flying Missile RailSB173-006 Rapid Response Small Launcher Technology

DARPA - 7

DARPA SBIR 17.3 Topic Descriptions

SB173-001 TITLE: Wearable Ultrasound for Imaging and Modulation

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Biomedical, Electronics

OBJECTIVE: Design and fabricate a wearable and conformable ultrasound transducer system for high resolution imaging of tissues/organs as well as delivering acoustic energy for modulating the function of those organs or tissues.

DESCRIPTION: There is a critical DoD need to develop a system(s) or platform solution to address the capability gap in the medical ultrasound community, with broad applicability to wearable diagnostics and modulation. Current, field portable ultrasound transducer and imaging systems are readily available yet have a number of drawbacks that restrict their use. First, a highly trained technician is required to control the angle and positioning of the ultrasound wand and to decipher the images produced by these systems. Second, the relative size, weight, and power (SWaP) of current systems are restrictive for wide adoption. Third, current systems include only imaging capabilities and do not include the ability to deliver focused acoustic energy with the aim of modulating organ/tissue function (see references 1, 2).

Developing ultrasound transducer systems that overcome these challenges is the focus of this topic. A wearable and conformable ultrasound system that could be placed on the body in a static location could eliminate the need for highly trained technician for wand positioning, and enable image processing software systems to read and provide diagnostic measures of the ultrasound images. Likewise, a conformable array of ultrasound transducers could conceivably reduce the SWaP of existing systems to enable broad adoption in home or field scenarios. Furthermore, there is growing interest in therapeutic applications of ultrasound, with new research demonstrating that acoustic energy delivered to tissues and organs can regulate their function. Wearable ultrasound systems may thus offer diagnostic, monitoring, and therapeutic capabilities in a single, lightweight device.

The ultrasound transducer need not include a built-in display for imaging. Instead, the device should interface with one or more commercially available handheld displays, such as tablets or smartphones.

PHASE I: Develop preliminary design concept and basic prototype to determine technological feasibility of a low-power, scalable, flexible ultrasound transducer array for pre-clinical animal use. The component must support capabilities for simultaneous imaging and delivery of acoustic energy to targeted regions. The anticipated specifications for the device are left for the proposer companies to decide based on their intended application space. The device should have broad frequency and power capabilities that would be highly flexible and with rapid reconfigurability all within FDA safety limits.

The Phase I deliverable is a basic prototype and final report that must include: (1) modeling and simulations of expected imaging and acoustic energy delivery capabilities including power, pressure, frequency, spatial and temporal resolution specifications; (2) testing of modeled capabilities by the prototype in a phantom system; (3) prototype performance metrics, and identification and plan to address deficiencies to be optimized in Phase II; and (4) competitive assessment of the market. Optimizing usability with multiple imaging interfaces will be considered an additional attractive feature. Plans for Phase II should include optimization design goals and key technological milestones to enable pre-clinical testing and evaluation. Phase I should account for time to submit and process all required animal use protocols as appropriate for moving to Phase II.

For this topic, DARPA will accept proposals for work and cost up to $225,000 for Phase I. The preferred structure is a $175,000 base period, up to 12 months period of performance, and a $50,000, 3-month option period. Alternative structures may be accepted if sufficient rationale is provided.

PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate a wearable and conformable ultrasound system based on the basic prototype from Phase I. A critical design review will be performed to finalize the design. Particular emphasis will be placed

DARPA - 8

upon prototype size, weight, power, cost, functionality, scalability, flexibility, and the ability to reliably image and deliver focused ultrasound simultaneously. Phase II deliverable will include: (1) a working prototype of the system, including expected life-cycle capabilities; (2) test data on its performance collected in one or more pre-clinical animal models; (3) test data to ensure compliance with relevant regulations from FDA, FCC, IEC, or other organizations for use in animals and/or humans; and (4) projections for manufacturing yield and costs. Phase II should account for time to submit and process all required animal and/or human subjects use protocols as appropriate.

Proposers are highly encouraged to clearly segregate research tasks from human and/or animal testing tasks to allow for partial funding while approvals are being obtained.

For this topic, DARPA will accept Phase II proposals for work and cost up to $3,000,000 for a period of up to 36 months. This amount and duration will be inclusive of an Option period. Proposers will be expected to propose the appropriate duration and cost needed to accomplish the work. Phase II awards and options are subject to the availability of funds.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Advanced device for at home/field use by civilians/soldiers in clinically relevant applications. Advanced bio-electronic medicine applications for civilians/soldiers to diagnose and/or treat local or systemic inflammation, traumatic brain injury, organ dysfunction, or other clinically relevant applications.

REFERENCES:1. Tyler, WJ., et al., Remote Excitation of Neuronal Circuits Using Low-Intensity, Low-Frequency Ultrasound. PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3511.

2. Juan, EJ., et al., Vagus Nerve Modulation Using Focused Pulsed Ultrasound: Potential Applications and Preliminary Observations in a Rat. Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 2014 Mar 1; 24(1): 67–71.

KEYWORDS: ultrasound, acoustic energy, advanced electronics, wearable electronics, flexible electronics, computer aided engineering, design for manufacture, design for test, fabrication, integrated product and process design, ASIC

SB173-002 TITLE: Nonlinear Plasmonic Structures and Devices

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes

OBJECTIVE: Develop functional photonic devices and circuits which exploit non-linear morphological and nanostructure compositions that are complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) compatible.

DESCRIPTION: There is a critical DoD need to consider miniaturization and CMOS compatibility of on-chip tunable and non-linear photonic components and devices. Traditionally, the diffraction limit of light has limited the miniaturization and high-density integration of photonic circuits and devices. One solution has been to exploit surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs), which are bound waves at the interface between a metal and a dielectric. SPPs supporting structures include metal-insulator-metal (MIM) waveguides, insulator-metal-insulator (IMI) waveguides and dielectric loaded surface plasmon polaritons waveguides have been suggested and demonstrated [1]. Because the energy mostly propagates in the low loss dielectric layer, the latter have much longer propagation lengths than MIM waveguides. However, to broaden nanoscale photonic functionality, MIM structures can confine light to deep subwavelength scales (e.g. < 0.05 of a wavelength) enhancing non-linear effects. In addition, recent developments in subwavelength antennas and meta-atoms, suggests that the dynamics and coupling between two or more subwavelength shaped structures can provide further functionality.

The propagation length of MIM structures varies from several micrometers to several tens of micrometers, which is adequate for many for nano-photonic applications. Passive photonic circuits elements such directional couplers

DARPA - 9

(DC) and Mach–Zehnder interferometers (MZIs) based on MIM structures have been proposed and demonstrated. These devices can provide components for signal processing, but an all-optical circuit requires active devices. SPP’s in reduced sized structures containing non-linear optical materials can provide modulating capabilities [2]. Control over the plasmon characteristics relies on the design of the nanostructures’ composition and morphology. Prior research includes optical bistability and variable transmission responses under different incident intensities [3], demonstrating all-optical approaches to control light with light. The wavelength of electromagnetic radiation used in photonic components, devices and circuits, and hence photonic device size, is approximately one hundred times larger than typical electronic components. The use of high index dielectrics will only shrink the optical wavelength in proportion to the refractive index of refraction. Plasmonics, i.e. a collective oscillation of electrons at the surface of a conducting material, oscillate at optical frequencies and propagate along and are tightly confined to the surface with dimensions comparable to electronic circuits. Transverse decay lengths are on the order of the skin depth, 10 nm. Plasmonic structures and devices are lossy but only need to carry information a few centimeters across a chip or a few microns within a device to be effective in fusing electronics with photonics. Light at optical frequencies can be focused to a spot size of only 5 nm through the use of surface plasmons.

This tight confinement of electromagnetic waves provides device opportunities and high intensities facilitate non-linear effects that may have low switching threshold energies and fast response times. Non-linear effects can be exploited for frequency conversion, parametric effects as well as simple harmonic generation. These properties are governed by the subwavelength features in plasmonic components and devices, and provide a means to control light with light [4].

PHASE I: Demonstrate the feasibility of non-linear, plasmonic-based devices which provide some specific functionality like frequency conversion at high data rates. Ideally they should have low loss, support small (e.g. less than 1 µm2) footprints and be compatible with CMOS electronic devices at the chip level for control and tunability. Suggested devices include, but are not limited to, all-optical switch, modulators, optical limiter, frequency up-conversion, frequency down-conversion, self focusing, self phase modulation, and Raman scattering. To support scalability requirements of next generation signal processing architectures, the modulators should occupy a small footprint (target is ≤ 2 µm2) have low insertion loss characteristics (<5dB), while providing efficient performance. Phase I deliverables will include a final report, which includes a detailed analysis of the compatibility of the proposed devices, and predicted performance for Phase II.

For this topic, DARPA will accept proposals for work and cost up to $225,000 for Phase I. The preferred structure is a $175,000, 12-month base period, and a $50,000, 4-month option period. Alternative structures may be accepted if sufficient rationale is provided.

PHASE II: Finalize the device and material parameters from Phase I. Conduct basic experimental observation of the expected performance of the plasmonic device and its application. Design and fabricate a prototype, ultra-compact plasmonic device. Phase II deliverables will include a final report, which includes designs, fabrication process, and experiment results.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Possible applications for this technology span both the military and commercial arenas. The rapid increase in the clock speed of computers has slowed in recent years due to the interconnect bottlenecks on the chip itself. A plasmonic architecture is expected to alleviate the problems associated with the large size of present day optical components. In the near term, for applications not requiring an entire plasmonic ensemble of active and passive circuitry with sources, detectors, and devices, we recognize that individual advances in plasmonic devices will help to couple photonics to the broader field of nanotechnology.

REFERENCES:1. R. Zia et al, “Plasmonics: the next chip-scale technology,” Materials Today, Vol.9, Issue 7-8 (2006)

2. C. Min et al, “All-Optical Switching in Subwavelength metallic grating structure containing non-linear optical materials,” Opt. Letters, Vol. 33, No.8 (2008)

DARPA - 10

3. H. Ming et al, “Optical bistability in subwavelength metallic grating coated by non-linear material,” Opt Express, Vol 15, No. 19 (2007)

4. M. Kauranen et al, “Non-linear plasmonics,” Nature Photonics, No. 6 (2012)

KEYWORDS: Plasmonics, Non-linear Devices, Parametric Processes, Plasmonic Devices

SB173-003 TITLE: Mitigating Data-Oriented Application Exploits via Application Data Sandboxing

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Battlespace, Information Systems

OBJECTIVE: Design and implement a framework for application data sandboxing of data-rich applications such as web browsers, document editors and web servers hosting dynamic content.

DESCRIPTION: There is a critical DoD need to develop efficient methods for identifying and enforcing appropriate controls to security-relevant data residing within the address-space of an application. Applications are increasingly data-rich, yet the security protections available for the most popular platforms do not provide any data controls within the context of a single application. While some applications do employ proprietary ad hoc sandboxing, such technology only enforces separation of the application from the operating system, instead of separation of the data used within the application. This topic seeks ways to add data controls with generic operating system or application-embedded security extensions.

The root cause of a large class of application attacks stems from memory corruption vulnerabilities. These memory errors may, for example, be caused by an application using uninitialized memory, pointers to objects that have been previously freed, or accessing a buffer of data beyond the allocated size of the data. Traditionally, these vulnerabilities have been used in attacks that seize control of an application by altering control-flow, for example, by injecting new code into the application or by leveraging existing code. Contemporary defenses seek to reduce the number of memory corruption vulnerabilities, and the widespread deployment of practical implementations of data-execution prevention (DEP) and control-flow integrity (CFI) [1] have made code injection and code reuse attacks more difficult to pull off than they once were. Nevertheless, applications are routinely shown to be vulnerable to the loss of data security [2], both in terms of confidentiality and integrity, especially in light of non-control data attacks [3,7,8].

Hence, the DoD seeks a framework for application data sandboxing (or isolation, partitioning, etc.) of data-rich applications that provide data security, both in terms of confidentiality and integrity [4], thereby preventing or significantly limiting both the modification and disclosure of security-relevant data used by an application. The data security model should go beyond Bell-LaPadula and Biba Integrity models, which only separate higher-privileged data from lower-privileged data. This requirement stems from the fact that data-oriented attacks typically involve accessing data of the same privilege-level (e.g., passwords, keys, browser cookies), but across different contexts (e.g., domains, users, processes) [5,6]. The framework should be transparent to the user, not interfere with normal application functionality, not require extensive manual software re-architecting, and should operate with minimal negative performance impact under normal usage of the application. The approaches taken should, for example, identify security-relevant data, partition the data into appropriately sized groupings of data and the code that may access those data groupings, then enforce the partitioning at runtime. Frameworks that correctly and efficiently operate on COTS binaries are favored.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to determine innovative cyber techniques and mechanisms that can be used within a methodology for application data sandboxing of data-rich applications. Design the resulting concept framework capable of sandboxing data in COTS applications. The framework should prevent or significantly limit the modification and disclosure of security-relevant data used by an application (e.g., cryptographic keys, passwords, personal and banking information, configuration settings) in the presence of a memory disclosure (or modification) attack. The framework should operate with negligible performance overhead. An initial prototype may

DARPA - 11

make use of program source code and have a negative impact on program performance, so long as a clear path is provided to eliminate those issues in Phase II. As part of Phase I, a test case with success criteria for data security in data-rich applications should be defined. Phase I deliverables will include a final report that details initial prototype design and concept framework, and any preliminary results for the test case.

For this topic, DARPA will accept proposals for work and cost up to $150,000 for Phase I. The preferred structure is a $100,000, 6-month base period, and a $50,000, 4-month option period.

PHASE II: Fully develop the Phase I concept framework. The resulting prototype will be demonstrated in accordance with the success criteria developed in Phase I. Phase II deliverables will include a working prototype and final report that details demonstration results.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This dual-use technology applies to both military and commercial environments affected by cyber adversaries. Commercial benefits include increased cyber warfare protection of infiltration of a company’s data, preventing or significantly limiting both the modification and disclosure of security-relevant data used by an application, and thus, increased protection of critical infrastructure environments (e.g., health, electrical, transportation, etc.). The DoD and the commercial world have similar challenges with respect to maintaining the integrity of their cyber computing and communications infrastructure. The DoD is concerned with being able to effectively keep the cyber intruder from penetrating operational systems that support the warfighter. The resulting framework, capable of sandboxing data in COTS applications and adding data controls with generic operating system or application-embedded security extensions, is directly transitionable to the DoD for use by the services (e.g., Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC), Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)).

REFERENCES:1. CARLINI, N., BARRESI, A., PAYER, M., WAGNER, D., AND GROSS, T. R. Control-flow bending: On the effectiveness of control-flow integrity. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2015.

2. Z. Durumeric, J. Kasten, D. Adrian, J. Halderman, M. Bailey, F. Li, N. Weaver, J. Amann, J. Beekman, M. Payer, and V. Paxson. The Matter of Heartbleed. In Internet Measurement Conference, 2014.

3. S. Chen, J. Xu, E. C. Sezer, P. Gauriar, and R. K. Iyer. Non-control-data attacks are realistic threats. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2005.

4. M. Castro, M. Costa, T. Harris, "Securing software by enforcing data-flow integrity," Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2006.

5. Y. Jia, Z. Chua, H. Hu, S. Chen, P. Saxena, and Z. Liang. 2016. "The Web/Local" Boundary Is Fuzzy: A Security Study of Chrome's Process-based Sandboxing. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016.

6. R. Rogowski, M. Morton, F. Li, K. Z. Snow, F. Monrose, and M. Polychronakis. Revisiting Browser Security in the Modern Era: New Data-only Attacks and Defenses. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2017.

7. H. Hu, Z. L. Chua, S. Adrian, P. Saxena, and Z. Liang. Automatic generation of data-oriented exploits. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2015.

8. Blog.ropchain.com. Disarming EMET 5.52: Controlling it all with a single write action, April, 2017.

KEYWORDS: Cyber defense; Memory error vulnerability; Data-oriented attack; Data-flow integrity; Application exploit

DARPA - 12

SB173-004 TITLE: Design Tools for Hardware Trojan Detection and Mitigation

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics

OBJECTIVE: Define new hardware security techniques for integrated circuits (ICs) and develop electronic design automation (EDA) tools enabling the detection and neutralization of malicious logic modifications.

DESCRIPTION: The commercial advanced IC market is increasingly a globalized, high-volume, and highly competitive enterprise, driving leading-edge wafer foundries out of the United States. Conversely, the DoD has historically required domestic, low-volume, and trusted fabrication sources in order to safeguard classified IP contained in circuit designs. As commercial market practices continue to diverge from DoD policy, new technologies are required to ensure that the military retains access to the most advanced fabrication nodes for its high-performance hardware needs [1].

The past decade has seen intense academic interest in hardware security techniques [2, 3] intended to prevent the reverse engineering and subsequent modification of sensitive IP by unauthorized third parties. Application specific ICs (ASICs) fabricated in foreign, untrusted foundries are particularly vulnerable to these threats since the full design is easily available through imaging and side-channel analysis. Once an adversary extracts the design, they may resynthesize the netlist and layout to include malicious modifications, sometimes referred to as hardware Trojan horses (HTHs). HTHs may modify the circuit’s functionality, leak sensitive information, or degrade performance. Obfuscation of ASIC functionality [4, 5] is sometimes employed to protect a design from reverse engineering, thereby increasing the difficulty of inserting an effective HTH. However, such measures do not provide complete security. Indeed, the additional circuitry needed to obfuscate a design incurs penalties to performance, power, and chip area, ultimately limiting the practically attainable degree of security.

In the event that trusted practices and obfuscation do not provide sufficient security over an ASIC development flow, other security measures that expose signatures of logic modifications post-manufacture are the last line of defense against HTHs. Such authentication tests can be performed either during integration acceptance testing at a trusted packaging facility or during operation in real time. In the former, test vectors are applied to the IC in order to either trigger a HTH response or observe HTH side effects on the power and/or timing characteristics of ICs [6]. Unfortunately, well-designed HTHs are stealthy, rarely triggered, and have signatures that are difficult to distinguish from similar effects caused by manufacturing variability. DARPA seeks to promote the practice of HTH testing by advancing design-for-test (DFT) principles into industry standard EDA tools. These measures should sensitize IC designs to HTH insertions or provide additional functionality to improve the probability of detection, and should be of integrated within commercial EDA development flows such that performance and overhead impacts will be less severe than ad-hoc approaches. Other authentication measures can monitor the information flow on an ASIC during operation [7,8]. DARPA seeks to develop new methods that detect faulty logic with high probability, prevent the triggering of HTHs, or reconfigure logic in real time to mitigate the impacts of HTHs that happen to pass through acceptance testing or other defensive measures.

PHASE I: Develop a methodology for an innovative design for test, runtime monitoring, HTH trigger defense, or other hardware security technique that mitigates the risk of HTH insertion. Identify and develop a security metric for evaluation and optimization of the method under study in a design tool, and perform simulations or small-scale benchmark demonstrations of the method. The Phase 1 deliverable will be a final report that will include a detailed implementation concept for the security technique and performance specifications for the tool to be developed and tested in Phase II.

For this topic, DARPA will accept proposals for work and cost up to $150,000 for Phase I. The preferred structure is a $100,000, 6-month base period, and a $50,000, 4-month option period.

PHASE II: Develop an EDA tool implementing the security technique that is compatible with standard commercial EDA tools and flow. The tool shall accept a large-scale, open-source benchmark design specified by the government, and output a modified version of the design on which the technique has been implemented. The EDA

DARPA - 13

tool, modified design, and report on the performance of the tool shall be delivered to the government for evaluation.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Hardware security is a significant concern both to the military and commercial domains for maintaining sensitive systems. As part of Phase III, the developed tool should be transitioned into enterprise-level software that can be integrated into existing ASIC development flows. Applications include, but are not limited to, global positioning system (GPS), radar and communication transceivers, audio/video processors, and microcontrollers.

REFERENCES:1. Defense Science Board Washington DC, “Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply,” ADA435563 http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA435563 (2005).

2. K. Xiao, D. Forte, Y. Jin, R. Karri, S. Bhunia, and M. Tehranipoor, “Hardware Trojans: Lessons Learned after One Decade of Research,” ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Elec. Syst. 22, 6 (2016).DOI: 10.1145/2906147

3. M. Rostami, F. Koushanfar, and R. Karri, “A Primer on Hardware Security: Models, Methods, and Metrics,” Proc. IEEE 102, 1283 (2014).DOI: 10.1109/JPROC.2014.2335155

4. R. P. Cocchi, J. B. Baukus, L. Wai Chow, and B. J. Wang, “Circuit Camouflage Integration for Hardware IP Protection,” Des. Autom. Conf. (2014).DOI: 10.1145/2593069.2602554

5. R. S. Chakraborty and S. Bhunia, “HARPOON: An Obfuscation-Based SoC Design Methodology for Hardware Protection,” IEEE Trans. CAD Int. Circ. Syst. 28, 1493 (2009).DOI: 10.1109/TCAD.2009.2028166

6. H. Salmani, M. Tehranipoor, and J. Plusquellic, “A Novel Technique for Improving Hardware Trojan Detection and Reducing Trojan Activation Time,” IEEE Tran. VLSI Syst. 20, 112 (2012).DOI: 10.1109/TVLSI.2010.2093547

7. J. Dubeuf, D. Hely, and R.Karri, “Run-time detection of hardware Trojans: The processor protection unit,” IEEE Eur. Test Symp. (2013).DOI: 10.1109/ETS.2013.6569378

8. T. F. Wu, K. Ganesan, Y. A. Hu, H.-S. P. Wong, S. Wong, S. Mitra, “TPAD: Hardware Trojan Prevention and Detection for Trusted Integrated Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Comp. Aid. Des. Int. Circ. Syst. 35, 521 (2016).DOI: 10.1109/TCAD.2015.2474373

KEYWORDS: Microelectronics, Security, Globalization

SB173-005 TITLE: Design of and Rapid Manufacturing Technology for a Flying Missile Rail

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement.

DARPA - 14

OBJECTIVE: Design a low-risk flying missile rail to launch an AIM-120 missile and associated manufacturing approach that could surge to large volumes on short notice.

DESCRIPTION: There is a critical DoD need to explore potential new approaches of on-demand manufacturing through the concept of a flying missile rail (FMR). A new advanced monolithic aircraft typically requires 10-25 years to design, develop, and build. New technology concepts are subject to requirements and other processes which can render them programmatically unrealizable before the technology becomes obsolete. An innovative approach is needed to ‘build on demand’ and to incrementally enhance existing capability.

There are two main pieces to this effort: the ability to rapidly build a FMR on demand at a rate of 500 units per month and the FMR itself designed to be produced at a rate of 500 units per month.

An FMR is a device that can optionally remain on the wing of a host F-16 or F-18 aircraft and release an AIM-120 missile, or alternately, fly away from the host aircraft acting as a booster and extending the range of an AIM-120, Small Diameter Bomb, or special payload pod. Once the FMR reaches the target area, the FMR vehicle would be capable of loitering until the weapon is released. The flight performance and flying characteristics of the FMR will be a fallout of the successful performer’s design, and is constrained by the wing hardpoint capacity (to be estimated by the proposer based on public data). Design parameters of the FMR may include configuration, payload capacity (1 or 2 AIM-120s, other payloads), aerodynamic design, engine selection, flight performance, minimal payload slot for a radio with a power connector, the radio itself, and an antenna for the radio. The design and analysis of FMR technology can leverage an appropriate a suite of engineering analysis and modeling and simulation tools in the execution of this task.

Additionally, this vision calls for an ability to rapidly manufacture the design in the future. An objective vision would foresee the ability to surge and construct up to 500 FMRs (goal) in a 1 month period. Technical and procedural approaches to this surge manufacturing capacity are desired. It is anticipated that this manufacturing objective may drive aspects of the FMR design itself.

It is anticipated that this broad topic would benefit from small business innovation both in aircraft design and manufacturing technology. Successful proposals will address both aspects, and suggest a path to future risk reduction (Phase II and beyond), that may include prototype manufacturing, testing, or other activity.

Rapid manufacturing and aircraft design are two specialties which often do not reside in the same company. Teaming is highly encouraged for all proposals in all phases to bring the best experts into one design. Phase II may award FMR and rapid manufacturing as two separate Phase II efforts to increase overall program effectiveness though two separate efforts would be considered the same team.

The proposers are expected to choose all elements and components of the design which enable rapid manufacturing and that no equipment will be specified by the government. The FMR must be built for rapid manufacture and be compatible with the F-16 and F-18. Communication equipment (Link-16, weapons data link, etc) can be suggested or provisioned for under the auspices of rapid manufacture of the FMR. Any available low SWAP-C military data links may be considered, assuming that low SWAP-C radios enables rapid manufacture. Any necessary flight computers, bus wiring, mechanical equipment, engines, software, and required electronics are the responsibility of the proposers. Detailed designs and models using actual hardware and software are highly desired over intentions to integrate existing capability.

Capability creep must not impact the sole mission of the FMR: The mission of the FMR is to be a reusable if not launched from the host platform or fly to a point, loiter, and launch its payload. Alternate uses for the FMR will be asked WITHOUT a desire to change the design. The FMR does not need to maintain controlled flight after it’s last munition is expended (if designed for multiple munitions) but will have an operational utility if it controlled flight can be maintained. Again, rapid manufacture of the FMR is a priority and any capability beyond flight after launch is a bonus if the rate of 500 per month is not impacted. The AIM-120 is the primary munition to be considered. Any additional munition capability is an added bonus but the AIM-120 is the point of the FMR.

DARPA - 15

PHASE I: Develop a conceptual design for a flying missile rail and estimate performance. Develop low-risk approaches that are suited for massive surge manufacturing, e.g. capable of rapidly manufacturing up to 500 flying missile rails (goal) in one month. The rail should be capable of acting as a conventional AIM-120 missile rail on F-16 and F-18 aircraft, or optionally acting as an independent robotic range booster for the AIM-120.

Phase I deliverables will include:1. Conceptual flying missile rail design

The flying missile rail must be compatible with existing F-16 and F-18 loaders. Proposers should source public information to estimate F-16 or F-18 hardpoint capacity. Additional information may be provided during a Phase I.

2. Prediction of flight capability and characteristics, suitable for evaluation by a third party. Flight time and flight characteristics of the flying FMR with AIM-120 loadout. Altitude and airspeed profile of the FMR post AIM-120 launch to end-of-flight. Any of the above characteristics by carrying other munitions after the AIM-120 loadout is fully analyzed.

3. Conceptual design of a flying missile rail production approach that produces up to 500 flying missile rails (goal) in one month.

There is no requirement to manufacture the flying missile rail in austere locations. The objective is on-demand rate and location is part of the analysis.

Analysis should include transportation of a manufactured device from the manufactured location to and on a C-17 compatible pallet.

Clearly identified assumptions on rates or pre-requisites4. The Phase II proposal will be due 3 months after Phase I award to promote rapid progress to a Phase II award.

For this topic, DARPA will accept proposals for work and cost up to $225,000 for Phase I. The preferred structure is a $175,000, 6-month base period, and a $50,000, 4-month option period. Alternative structures may be accepted if sufficient rationale is provided.

PHASE II: Perform risk reduction on the flying missile rail design and manufacturing approach developed in Phase I. Risk reduction may include:

Prototype manufacture Prototype testing Manufacturing approach development or demonstration.

The exact content of the Phase II risk reduction approach shall be up to the proposer. It is expected that the choice will be made weighing the greatest technical risks the concept of a flying missile rail and associated manufacturing approach. High impact demonstrations are highly desirable. Approaches and risk reduction activity which lend themselves to follow-on activity (fit testing, captive carry, test flights, manufacturing pilots) are desirable.

For a performer choosing to prioritize flying missile rail design risk reduction, notional Phase II deliverables might include any of the following:1. One or more safe separation mass models representative of the final design.2. Detailed design of the manufacturing approach including cost assumptions required for long term storage.3. Detailed design of a flying missile rail.4. Physical installation of a flying missile rail. Ideally this is suited for captive carry on F-16 or F-18, but DARPA

recognizes this level of maturity may not be realizable within scope of Phase II.5. Detailed predictions of flight characteristics and performance.6. Risk reduction demonstration of rapid manufacturing approach.7. Safe separation analysis for the release of:

The flying missile rail with AIM-120 from an F-16 (stations 3 and 7 with 300 gallon fuel tanks on station 4 and 6) and F-18.

An AIM-120 from a flying missile rail where the flying missile rail stays attached to the F-16 and F-18. An AIM-120 from a flying missile rail (the flying missile rail is flying and the AIM-120 is successfully

launched from the flying missile rail).

DARPA - 16

A performer choosing to prioritize manufacturing approach risk reduction could identify alternative deliverables in their Phase II proposal.

Teaming is highly encouraged for all proposals in all phases to bring the best experts into one design. Phase II may award FMR and rapid manufacturing as two separate Phase II efforts to increase overall program effectiveness though two separate efforts would be considered the same team.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The commercial application resulting from this effort will demonstrate to other qualified contractors how to develop rapid and short lifetime systems to the DoD without the traditional long-term programmatic timeline. Learning how to break into the Defense Sector is an extremely powerful and valuable commodity to the commercial sector.

The Military application resulting from this effort will be twofold: an actual on-call mass-manufactured weapon system and a process that can be applied to other systems. This example system, the Flying Missile Rail, is a system which will be utilized immediately but is too low on the DoD priority to procure. The traditional DoD timelines, operation and maintenance, and life-limit on short term point solutions prevent their procurement. The benefit of an SBIR-enabled “build-on-demand” system demonstrates how to maneuver within the Federal Acquisition Regulations using a different model to achieve rapid capability. This change will address one of DARPA’s challenges. This program is an application of an existing DoD program such as the Air Force Research Lab’s Loyal Wingman Program (see references).

REFERENCES:1. http://www.c4isrnet.com/articles/loyal-wingman-program-seeks-to-realize-benefits-of-advancements-in-autonomy

2. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-touts-loyal-wingman-for-combat-jets-423682/

3. https://researchfunding.duke.edu/rfi-autonomy-loyal-wingman-testbed

4. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa87323841777b53ba42c2fcc51b5458&tab=core&_cview=0

5. http://www.darpa.mil/program/gremlins

KEYWORDS: Flying Missile Rail, Manned-unmanned teaming, loyal wingman, weapon truck

SB173-006 TITLE: Rapid Response Small Launcher Technology

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Space Platforms

OBJECTIVE: Leverage emerging commercial technology and investments to deliver an operationally responsive, low-cost expendable launch vehicle (ELV) with individual stages that could be re-purposed as an expendable upper stage on a reusable first-stage booster. Develop the vehicle design and manufacture and test the ELV stack and/or the candidate expendable upper stage.

DESCRIPTION: There is a compelling Defense Department (DoD) need to leverage emerging commercial and defense technologies to enable fielding of responsive and low-cost liquid rocket ELVs and expendable stages suitable for use on future commercial and military reusable first stages (e.g., DARPA’s Experimental Spaceplane). Many established aerospace and emerging entrepreneurial companies are developing new ELV/stage technologies that strive to dramatically reduce the cost of access to space. The goal of this topic is to leverage these investments to enable operability-driven, low-cost launch vehicles capable of deploying payloads of militarily relevant mass and

DARPA - 17

volume to orbit. Technological trends facilitating such ELVs include an ongoing computer/software revolution enabling affordable design; sophisticated software in lieu of mechanical complexity, integration, and test; micro-miniaturization of electronics and mechanical actuators; high strength-to-weight composites and nano-engineered materials; lightweight structural concepts and thermal protection; advanced manufacturing methods that enable high- thrust/weight rocket engines and turbo-machinery; and liquid propellants that are safe, affordable, and promote ease of handling.

The proposer must demonstrate a clear understanding of the system applications of the launch vehicle, and a high level of technical and engineering maturity with respect to all critical technologies for this expendable vehicle or upper stage. Key design elements include non-toxic propellants, functional mechanisms and accommodations for insertion of operational satellites, and balancing gross mass with adequate velocity change, payload, and manufacturing cost.

Low-cost stages with efficient structural arrangements to accommodate the structural interface and load paths to the reusable booster, while maintaining sufficient functionality and performance, are of interest. ELV designs that can be re-purposed for tactical missile applications and future boost glide air-transport systems are also of interest. A clear understanding of the technology applications to any proposed military or commercial system is essential. Critical technologies may include lightweight structures and propulsion, low-cost additively manufactured engines and components, high-impulse-density propellants, miniaturized avionics, modular components, altitude compensation and complementary aerodynamic/propulsion integration, and stability, guidance and control subsystems—all integrated into the stage while keeping the system simple and affordable.

Proposers are encouraged to leverage their commercial investments and may seek to design, fabricate and test an entire ELV or a single stage.

PHASE I: Develop the design, manufacturing and test approach to fabricate extremely low-cost, responsive ELVs and/or upper stages for space access. Critical component or analytical risk reduction is encouraged. Identify potential system-level and technology applications of the proposed innovation. Proposers must delineate how the proposed program would lead to a responsive, low-cost ELV suitable for launching small DoD payloads while also delivering a responsive low-cost stage suitable for use as an upper stage on reusable commercial or Experimental Spaceplane first stages. Specific goals for an upper stage include: 1) an ideal velocity change of 19,000 fps; 2) a payload of at least 1,200 lbs with a goal of 3,000+ lbs; 3) a reasonable payload density for operational satellites; 4) a total gross mass, including payload and fairing, less than or equal to 40,000 lbs; and 5) a unit fly-away cost of less than $1M per stage. It is anticipated that after award, these values would be refined after technical coordination with the reusable first stage provider and the government.

Using the above goals or alternatives based on the proposer’s analysis, develop a specific ELV and/or upper stage system design and identify the performance goals, technical feasibility, and innovative enabling technologies and alternatives. The design should include a detailed Phase II development plan for the technology addressing cost, schedule, performance and risk reduction. Technology and hardware risk reduction demonstrations at the component and/or system level should be identified, along with manufacturing and testing required to carry the program into Phases II and III. Hardware risk reduction during Phase I is encouraged although not required. As a minimum, the Phase I deliverables will include briefing charts reviewing system-level applications, a Phase II development plan, a Phase III military transition and commercialization strategy, and a detailed system design including weight statements, margins, and an inventory of all subsystems. The design, fabrication and test of any proposed hardware or software demonstrations in Phase I, if any, should also be documented.

The Phase II proposal will be due three months after Phase I award to promote rapid progress to a Phase II award.

For this topic, DARPA will accept proposals for work and cost up to $150,000 for Phase I. The preferred structure is a $100,000, 6-month base period, and a $50,000, 4-month option period.

PHASE II: For this topic, DARPA will accept Phase II proposals for work and cost up to $3,000,000 for a period of up to 18 months. The period of performance for this effort is expected to consist of a nine-month base period and a nine-month option period through Critical Design Review, manufacture and test with a funding level of up to

DARPA - 18

$1,500,000 each. Alternative structures that do not exceed 18 months and $3,000,000 may be proposed with sufficient rationale. Phase II awards and options are subject to the availability of funds.

Base effort ($1,500,000): Proposers are encouraged to leverage their private entrepreneurial investments to accelerate the Phase I design through Critical Design Review, then develop, demonstrate and validate the system design, critical hardware components and/or enabling technologies. The goal is to design, construct, and demonstrate the ELV or upper-stage prototype hardware designed in Phase I. The Phase II demonstration should advance the state of the art to between Technology Readiness Levels 4 and 5 and Manufacturing Readiness Levels 3 and 4. Required deliverables will include a final report including design data such as computer-aided design (CAD), finite element model (FEM), architectural and schematic documentation for the avionics and software suite, explanations of all key mechanisms, detailed mass properties, manufacturing and test plan, costing data, test data, updated future applications and Phase III military transition and commercialization strategy. Alternative deliverables will be considered provided they demonstrate an equivalent level of progress.

Option ($1,500,000): Proposers are encouraged to continue leveraging any private entrepreneurial investment to accelerate fabrication and demonstration of the ELV and/or expendable upper-stage design, then ground test the assembled stage(s). The demonstration should advance the state of the art to between Technology Readiness Levels 5 and 6 and Manufacturing Readiness Levels 4 and 5. Required deliverables will include the ELV and/or expendable upper stage prototype design, software, cost and test data in a final report. The proposer shall also update future applications of the ELV and/or expendable upper stage and the Phase III military transition and commercialization strategy.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Commercial Application – The proposer will identify commercial applications of the proposed technology(s) including use as a responsive, low-cost ELV and/or expendable upper stage on commercial reusable boosters including the commercially transitioned DARPA Experimental Spaceplane. Leveraging of commercial and defense investments in stage technology tailored to support specific upper-stage needs is encouraged. Technology transition opportunities shall be identified along with the most likely path for transition from SBIR research to an operational capability. The transition path may include use on commercial launch vehicles or alternative system and technology applications of interest to commercial customers.

DoD/Military Application – The proposer will identify military applications of the proposed technology(s) including use as a responsive, low-cost ELV and/or expendable upper stage on the DARPA Experimental Spaceplane or alternative commercial reusable boosters. The proposer shall identify the military advantages of operationally responsive ELVs and/or reusable spaceplanes with expendable stages to support launch on demand, rapid reconstitution and routine space access capabilities critical to the defense of the United States. Leveraging of commercial and defense investments in ELV/stage technology tailored to support specific upper-stage needs is encouraged. Technology transition opportunities shall be identified along with the most likely path for transition from SBIR research to an operational capability. The transition path may include use on commercial launch vehicles or alternative system and technology applications of interest to military users, including the U.S. Air Force’s 30-year vision of Global Vigilance, Global Reach and Global Power.

REFERENCES:1. Modern Engineering For Design of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, Dieter Huzel, David Huang, Harry Arbit, 1992. (Density Impulse defined, pg 19).

2. Sutton, G. and Biblarz, O. Rocket Propulsion Elements, 8th ed., Liquid rocket propulsion options and propellants.

3. Listing of robust commercial spaceflight industry members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

4. Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Program proposer’s day information: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-BAA-14-01/listing.html

DARPA - 19

5. America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future, July 2014. http://airman.dodlive.mil/files/2014/07/AF_30_Year_Strategy_2.pdf

6. USAF Strategic Master Plan, May 2015: http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/Force%20Management/Strategic_Master_Plan.pdf

7. Definitions of Manufacturing Readiness Levels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Readiness_Level

8. Definitions of Technology Readiness Levels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

KEYWORDS: Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV), upper stage, commercial launch, experimental spaceplane XS-1, point to point, point to point transport, suborbital flight, rocket, space, airlift, boost glide and rocket propulsion

DARPA - 20