· Web viewPropulsive elements may utilize and advance traditional solid and liquid propulsion or alternative solutions. For example, electric propulsion has high efficiency but the

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY (MDA)18.1 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Proposal Submission Instructions

I. INTRODUCTION

The Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) mission is to develop, test, and field an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.

The MDA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program is implemented, administered, and managed by the MDA SBIR/STTR Program Management Office (PMO), located within Advanced Technology (DV). Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the MDA SBIR Program should be submitted to:

Missile Defense Agency SBIR/STTR Program Office

MDA/DVRBldg. 5224, Martin Road

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Email: [email protected]: 256-955-2020

Proposals not conforming to the terms of this announcement will not be considered. MDA reserves the right to limit awards under any topic, and only those proposals of superior scientific and technical quality as determined by MDA will be funded. Only Government personnel with active non-disclosure agreements will evaluate proposals. MDA reserves the right to withdraw from negations at any time prior to contract award.

Please read the entire DoD announcement and MDA instructions carefully prior to submitting your proposal. Please go to https://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir#sbir-policy-directive to read the SBIR Policy Directive issued by the Small Business Administration.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Support Contractors

The offeror's attention is directed to the statement that non-Government technical consultants (consultants) to the Government may review and provide support in proposal evaluations during source selection. Consultants may have access to the offeror's proposals, may be utilized to review proposals, and may provide comments and recommendations to the Government's decision makers. Consultants will not establish final assessments of risk and will not rate or rank offerors’ proposals. They are also expressly prohibited from competing for MDA SBIR awards in the SBIR topics they review and/or on which they provide comments to the Government.

All consultants are required to comply with procurement integrity laws. Consultants will not have access to proposals that are labeled by the offerors as "Government Only." Pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, the MDA contracts with these organizations include a clause which requires them to (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. In addition, MDA requires the employees of those support contractors that provide technical analysis to the SBIR/STTR

MDA - 1

Program to execute non-disclosure agreements. These agreements will remain on file with the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO.

Non-Government advisors will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, employees of the aforementioned organizations may require access to proprietary information contained in the offerors' proposals.

II. OFFEROR SMALL BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Each offeror must qualify as a small business at time of award per the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.701-121.705 and certify to this in the Cover Sheet section of the proposal. Small businesses that are selected for award will also be required to submit a Funding Agreement Certification document prior to award.

SBA Company Registry

Per the SBIR Policy Directive, all SBIR applicants are required to register their firm at SBA’s Company Registry prior to submitting an application. Upon registering, each firm will receive a unique control ID to be used for submissions at any of the eleven (11) participating agencies in the SBIR program. For more information, please visit the SBA’s Firm Registration Page: http://www.sbir.gov/registration.

Performance Benchmark Requirements for Phase I Eligibility

MDA does not accept proposals from firms that are currently ineligible for Phase I awards as a result of failing to meet the benchmark rates at the last assessment. Additional information on Benchmark Requirements can be found in the DoD Instructions of this announcement.

III. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)

The basic OCI rules are covered in FAR 9.5 as follows (the Contractor is responsible for compliance):

(1) the Contractor's objectivity and judgment are not biased because of its present or planned interests which relate to work under this contract;

(2) the Contractor does not obtain unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its access to non-public information regarding the Government's program plans and actual or anticipated resources; and

(3) the Contractor does not obtain unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its access to proprietary information belonging to others.

All applicable rules under the FAR Section 9.5 apply.

IV. USE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS

See the “Foreign Nationals” section of the DoD program announcement for the definition of a Foreign National (also known as Foreign Persons).

ALL offerors proposing to use foreign nationals MUST disclose this information regardless of whether the topic is subject to export control restrictions. Identify any foreign citizens or individuals holding dual citizenship expected to be involved on this project as a direct employee,

MDA - 2

subcontractor, or consultant. For these individuals, please specify their country of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project. You may be asked to provide additional information during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen’s eligibility to participate on a SBIR contract. Supplemental information provided in response to this paragraph will be protected in accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), if applicable, and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)).

Proposals submitted with a foreign national listed will be subject to security review during the contract negotiation process (if selected for award). If the security review disqualifies a foreign national from participating in the proposed work, the contractor may propose a suitable replacement. In the event a proposed foreign person is found ineligible by the government to perform proposed work, the contracting officer will advise the offeror of any disqualifications but may not disclose the underlying rationale.

V. EXPORT CONTROL RESTRICTIONS

The technology within some MDA topics is restricted under export control regulations including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). ITAR controls the export and import of listed defense-related material, technical data and services that provide the United States with a critical military advantage. EAR controls military, dual-use and commercial items not listed on the United States Munitions List or any other export control lists. EAR regulates export controlled items based on user, country, and purpose. The offeror must ensure that their firm complies with all applicable export control regulations. Please refer to the following URLs for additional information: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html and http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/export-administration-regulations-ear.

Proposals submitted to export control-restricted topics will be subject to security review during the contract negotiation process (if selected for award). In the event a firm is found ineligible to perform proposed work, the contracting officer will advise the offeror of any disqualifications but may not disclose the underlying rationale.

Most MDA SBIR topics are for technology which is subject to ITAR and/or EAR. If the topic write-up indicates that the topic is subject to International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) and/or Export Administration Regulation (EAR), your company may be required to submit a Technology Control Plan (TCP) during the contracting negotiation process.

VI. CLAUSE H-08 PUBLIC RELEASE OF INFORMATION (Publication Approval)

Clause H-08 pertaining to the public release of information is incorporated into all MDA SBIR contracts and subcontracts without exception. Any information relative to the work performed by the contractor under MDA SBIR contracts must be submitted to MDA for review and approval prior to its release to the public. This mandatory directive also includes the subcontractor who shall provide their submission to the prime contractor for MDA’s review for approval.

VII. FLOW-DOWN OF CLAUSES TO SUBCONTRACTORS

The clauses to which the prime contractor and subcontractors are required comply include, but are not limited to the following clauses: MDA clause H-08 (Public Release of Information) , DFARS 252.204-7000 (Disclosure of Information) , and D FARS clause 252.204-7012 (Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting). Your proposal submission confirms that your subcontract is in accordance to the clauses cited above and any other clauses identified by MDA in any resulting contract.

MDA - 3

VIII. OWNERSHIP ELIGIBILITY

Prior to award, the Missile Defense Agency may request business/corporate documentation to assess ownership eligibility as related to the requirements of the Guide to SBIR Program Eligibility. These documents include, but may not be limited to, the Business License; Articles of Incorporation or Organization; By-Laws/Operating Agreement; Stock Certificates (Voting Stock); Board Meeting Minutes for the previous year; and a list of all board members and officers. If requested by MDA, the contractor shall provide all necessary documentation for evaluation prior to SBIR award. Failure to submit the requested documentation in a timely manner as indicated by MDA may result in the offeror’s ineligibility for further consideration for award.

IX. FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse, Please Contact: MDA Fraud, Waste & AbuseHotline: (256) [email protected]

DoD Inspector General (IG) Fraud, Waste & AbuseHotline: (800) [email protected]

Additional information on Fraud, Waste and Abuse may be found in the DoD Instructions of this announcement; sections 3.6 and 4.19.

X. PROPOSAL FUNDAMENTALS

Proposal SubmissionAll proposals MUST be submitted online using the DoD SBIR/STTR submission system (https://sbir.defensebusiness.org). Any questions pertaining to the DoD SBIR/STTR submission system should be directed to the DoD SBIR/STTR Help Desk: 1-800-348-0787.

Classified ProposalsClassified proposals are not accepted under the MDA SBIR Program. The inclusion of classified data in an unclassified proposal MAY BE grounds for the Agency to determine the proposal as non-responsive and the proposal not to be evaluated. Contractors currently working under a classified MDA SBIR contract must use the security classification guidance provided under that contract to verify new SBIR proposals are unclassified prior to submission. Phase I contracts are not typically awarded for classified work. However, in some instances, work being performed on Phase II contracts will require security clearances. If a Phase II contract will require classified work, the offeror must have a facility clearance and appropriate personnel clearances in order to perform the classified work. For more information on facility and personnel clearance procedures and requirements, please visit the Defense Security Service Web site at: http://www.dss.mil/index.html.

CommunicationAll communication from the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO will originate from the [email protected] email address. Please white-list this address in your company’s spam filters to ensure timely receipt of communications from our office.

MDA - 4

Proposal StatusThe MDA SBIR/STTR PMO will distribute selection and non-selection email notices to all firms who submit a MDA SBIR proposal. The email will be distributed to the “Corporate Official” and “Principal Investigator” listed on the proposal coversheet. MDA cannot be responsible for notification to a company that provides incorrect information or changes such information after proposal submission. Selection and non-selection notifications will be distributed to all offerors in the early May 2018 timeframe.

Proposal FeedbackMDA will not offer debriefs. However, we will provide written feedback to unsuccessful offerors regarding your proposal. Requests for feedback must be submitted in writing to the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO within 30 calendar days of non-selection notification. Non-selection notifications will provide instructions for requesting proposal feedback.

Discretionary Technical Assistance (DTA)Section 9(b) of the SBIR Policy Directives allows agencies to enter into agreements with suppliers to provide technical assistance to SBIR awardees, which may include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies or access to technical and business literature available through on-line data bases.

MDA permits award recipients to obtain technical assistance in accordance with the SBIR Policy Directive. An SBIR firm may acquire the technical assistance services described above on its own. Firms must request this authority from MDA and demonstrate in its SBIR proposal that the individual or entity selected can provide the specific technical services needed. In addition, costs must be included in the cost volume of the offeror’s proposal. The DTA provider may not be the requesting firm, an affiliate of the requesting firm, an 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 or research institution). If the awardee supports the need for this requirement sufficiently as determined by the Government, MDA will permit the awardee to acquire such technical assistance, in an amount up to $5,000 per year. This will be an allowable cost on the SBIR award. The per year amount will be in addition to the award and is not subject to any burden, profit or fee by the offeror. The per-year amount is based on the original contract period of performance and does not apply to period of performance extensions. Requests for DTA funding outside of the base period of performance (6 months) for Phase I proposal submission will not be considered.

The purpose of this technical assistance is to assist SBIR awardees in: 1. Making better technical decisions on SBIR projects;2. Solving technical problems that arise during SBIR projects;3. Minimizing technical risks associated with SBIR projects; and4. Commercializing the SBIR product or process.

XI. PHASE I PROPOSAL GUIDELINES

The DoD SBIR/STTR Proposal Submission system (available at https://sbir.defensebusiness.org) will lead you through the preparation and submission of your proposal. Read the front section of the DoD announcement for detailed instructions on proposal format and program requirements. Proposals not conforming to the terms of this announcement will not be considered.

MDA - 5

MAXIMUM PHASE I PAGE LIMIT FOR MDA IS 20 PAGES FOR VOLUME 2, TECHNICAL VOLUME

Any pages submitted beyond the 20-page limit within the Technical Volume (Volume 2) will not be evaluated. Any technical data/information that should be in the Technical Volume 2 but contained in other Volumes will not be considered.

Phase I Proposal

A complete Phase I proposal consists of four volumes: Volume 1: Proposal Cover Sheet (does not count towards maximum page limit) Volume 2: Technical Volume (20 pages) Volume 3: Cost Volume (does not count towards maximum page limit)

Volume 4: Company Commercialization Report (does not count towards maximum page limit)

MDA’s objective for the Phase I effort is to determine the merit and technical feasibility of the concept. The contract period of performance for Phase I shall be six (6) months and the award shall not exceed $100,000. A Phase I Option must be submitted with a period of performance of six (6) months and an amount not to exceed $50,000. The Phase I option may only be exercised if your firm is selected for a Phase II award. This option may or may not be exercised at the sole discretion of MDA. A list of topics currently eligible for proposal submission is included in these instructions, followed by full topic descriptions. These are the only topics for which proposals will be accepted at this time.

References to Hardware, Computer Software, or Technical DataIn accordance with the SBIR Directive, SBIR contracts are to conduct feasibility-related experimental or theoretical R/R&D related to describe agency requirements. The purpose for Phase I is to determine the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposed effort and quality in the performance of the Small Business Concern. It is not intended for any formal end-item contract delivery, and ownership by the Government of your hardware, computer software, or technical data.

As a result, your technical proposal should not contain any reference to the term "Deliverables" when referring to your hardware, computer software, or technical data. Instead use the term: “Products for Government Testing, Evaluation, Demonstration, and/or possible destructive testing.”

All contract deliverables (reports) MUST be submitted to MDA via the AMRDEC SAFE Web Application (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/).

52.203-5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees

As prescribed in FAR 3.404, the following FAR 52.203-5 clause shall be included in all contracts awarded under this BAA:

(a) The Contractor warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained to solicit or obtain this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a contingent fee, except a bona fide employee or agency. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Government shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the contingent fee.

(b) Bona fide agency, as used in this clause, means an established commercial or selling agency, maintained by a contractor for the purpose of securing business, that neither exerts nor proposes to exert

MDA - 6

improper influence to solicit or obtain Government contracts nor holds itself out as being able to obtain any Government contract or contracts through improper influence.

"Bona fide employee," as used in this clause, means a person, employed by a contractor and subject to the contractor's supervision and control as to time, place, and manner of performance, who neither exerts nor proposes to exert improper influence to solicit or obtain Government contracts nor holds out as being able to obtain any Government contract or contracts through improper influence. "Contingent fee," as used in this clause, means any commission, percentage, brokerage, or other fee that is contingent upon the success that a person or concern has in securing a Government contract.

"Improper influence," as used in this clause, means any influence that induces or tends to induce a Government employee or officer to give consideration or to act regarding a Government contract on any basis other than the merits of the matter.

XII. PHASE I PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

All of the following criteria must be met or your proposal will be REJECTED.

____1. The following have been submitted electronically through the DoD submission site by 8:00 p.m. (EST) 07 February 2018.

_____ a. Volume 1: DoD Proposal Cover Sheet

_____ b. Volume 2: Technical Volume (DOES NOT EXCEED 20 PAGES): Any pages submitted beyond this will not be evaluated. Your Proposal Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Company Commercialization Report DO NOT count toward your maximum page limit.

_____ c. If proposing to use foreign nationals; identify the foreign national(s) you expect to be involved on this project, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, country of origin and level of involvement.

_____ d. Volume 3: Cost Volume. (Online Cost Volume form is REQUIRED by MDA)

_____ e. Volume 4: Company Commercialization Report. (required even if your firm has no prior SBIR/STTR awards).

____2. Phase I proposal including its option is not to exceed $150,000. (does not include DTA)

XIII. PHASE I OPTION MUST BE INCLUDED AS PART OF PHASE I PROPOSAL

MDA implements the use of a Phase I Option that may be exercised at MDA’s sole discretion to fund interim Phase I activities to bridge the gap between Phase I and Phase II contracts. The exercise of a Phase I option does not guarantee an award of a Phase II contract. The Phase I Option, which must be included as part of the Phase I proposal, should cover activities over a period of up to six months and describe appropriate initial Phase II activities that may lead to the successful demonstration of a product or technology. The Phase I Option must be included within the 20-page limit as part of the Phase I proposal. Offerors who fail to include the Phase I option will not be eligible for Phase I option funding if selected for Phase II award.

MDA - 7

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals that are selected for contract award will undergo an MDA Policy and Security Review. Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords are subject to revision and/or redaction by MDA. 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) .

XIV. MDA PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS

MDA will evaluate and select Phase I and Phase II proposals using scientific review criteria based upon technical merit and other criteria as discussed in this announcement document. MDA reserves the right to award none, one, or more than one contract under any topic. MDA is not responsible for any money expended by the offeror before award of any contract. Due to limited funding, MDA reserves the right to limit awards under any topic and only proposals considered to be of superior quality as determined by MDA will be funded.

Phase I proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below, including potential benefit to the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Selections will be based on best value to the Government considering the following factors which are listed in descending order of importance:

a) The soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution.

b) The qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants. Qualifications include not only the ability to perform the research and development but also the ability to commercialize the results.

c) The potential for commercial (Government or private sector) application and the benefits expected to accrue from its commercialization.

Firms with a Commercialization Achievement Index (CAI) at or below the 20th percentile will be penalized in accordance with the DoD program announcement.

Please note that potential benefit to the BMDS will be considered throughout all the evaluation criteria and in the best value trade-off analysis. When combined, the stated evaluation criteria are significantly more important than cost or price.

It cannot be assumed that reviewers are acquainted with the firm or key individuals or any referenced experiments. Technical reviewers will base their conclusions on information contained in the proposal. Relevant supporting data such as journal articles, literature, including Government publications, etc., should be contained in the proposal and will count toward the applicable page limit.

Qualified advocacy letter(s) should be in Volume 2 and will count towards the proposal page limit and will be evaluated towards criterion C. Advocacy letters are not required for Phase I or Phase II. Advocacy letters shall not be contingent upon award of a subcontract.

A qualified advocacy letter is from a relevant commercial or Government Agency procuring organization(s) working with MDA, articulating their pull for the technology (i.e., what BMDS need(s) the technology supports and why it is important to fund it), and possible commitment to provide additional funding and/or insert the technology in their acquisition/sustainment program. This letter should be included as the last page(s) of your technical upload. Advocacy letter(s) which are faxed or e-mailed separately will NOT be considered.

MDA - 8

Phase II Proposal Submission

Per DoD SBIR Phase II Proposal guidance, all Phase I awardees from the 18.1 Phase I announcement will be permitted to submit a Phase II proposal for evaluation and potential award selection. Details on the due date, content, and submission requirements of the Phase II proposal will be provided by the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO. Only firms who receive a Phase I award resulting from the 18.1 announcement may submit a Phase II proposal. MDA will evaluate and select Phase II proposals using the Phase II evaluation criteria listed in the DoD Program announcement. While funding must be based upon the results of work performed under a Phase I award and the scientific and technical merit, feasibility and commercial potential of the Phase II proposal; Phase I final reports will not be reviewed as part of the Phase II evaluation process. The Phase II proposal should include a concise summary of the Phase I effort including the specific technical problem or opportunity addressed and its importance, the objective of the Phase I effort, the type of research conducted, findings or results of this research, and technical feasibility of the proposed technology. Due to limited funding, MDA reserves the right to limit awards under any topic and only proposals considered to be of superior quality will be funded. MDA does NOT participate in the DoD Fast Track program.

All Phase II awardees must have a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) approved accounting system. It is strongly urged that an approved accounting system be in place prior to the MDA Phase II award timeframe. If you do not have a DCAA approved accounting system, this will delay/prevent Phase II contract award. Please reference www.dcaa.mil/small_business/Accounting_System.pdf for more information on obtaining a DCAA approved accounting system.

Approved for Public Release17-MDA-9314 (16 August 17)

MDA - 9

MDA SBIR 18.1 Topic Index

MDA18-001 Artificial Intelligence to Simulate Cybersecurity Red TeamMDA18-002 Techniques for Real-time Hypervelocity Projectile fly-out Generation and OptimizationMDA18-003 Hyper-Velocity Projectile (HVP) Warhead Optimization for LethalityMDA18-004 Advanced Exo-atmospheric Propulsion and Control SystemsMDA18-005 Advanced High End Gyroscopes for Small Form Factor Inertial Measurement Unit

ApplicationsMDA18-006 Lightweight Structures for Future InterceptorsMDA18-007 Radiation Hardened Electronics and TechniquesMDA18-008 Methodologies for the Manufacture of Non-Traditional Kill Vehicle Primary Structures

MDA - 10

MDA SBIR 18.1 Topic Descriptions

MDA18-001 TITLE: Artificial Intelligence to Simulate Cybersecurity Red Team

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

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.

OBJECTIVE: Design, develop and demonstrate an innovative artificial intelligence system to simulate a Cybersecurity red team.

DESCRIPTION: The government is interested in innovative approaches for simulating Cybersecurity attacks to train missile defense network defenders. Traditionally, this is done using either canned scenarios or human-in-the-loop training events. Canned scenarios provide limited realism for training while human-in-the-loop events are cost prohibitive. Turning training into a "game" with rewards would incentivize the user to train more frequently to maintain top skill levels. An innovative approach to solve this problem may be an artificial intelligence system that could adapt its attacks real-time based on the trainee responses. For example, a highly trained neural network that could adapt to the trainee’s input with ever-increasing and adapting attack vectors could be one approach to solve this problem. Using a fuzzy logic rule based system might be another approach.

PHASE I: Develop and demonstrate a gaming concept for training a user to defend a network against multiple threats of varying types and capabilities. The concept should provide feedback to the game participant in a quantitatively measurable format. It should also provide the capability to compare these “scores” based on the participant’s alternatives or courses of action.

PHASE II: Refine and update the concept(s) based on Phase I results, and demonstrate the impacts of more advanced network attacks with increasing levels of realism. Demonstrate how the gaming concepts improve the operator’s ability to quickly plan for rapid attack vector changes. The government may provide a test bed at no cost, if the developer wishes to utilize the facility for high fidelity testing.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Demonstrate the new technologies via operation as part of a complete system or operation in a system-level test bed to allow for testing and evaluation in realistic scenarios. Pursue commercialization of the various technologies and optimization components developed in Phase II for potential commercial and military uses. Transition technologies to relevant government elements directly or through vendors.

REFERENCES:1. A. Nagarajan, J. M. Allbeck, A. Sood and T. L. Janssen. 2012. "Exploring game design for cybersecurity training." 2012 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER). 256-262.

2. D. Nicholson, et al. 2016. "Tailored Cybersecurity Training in LVC Environments." MODSIM World Conference, Virginia Beach, VA.

KEYWORDS: Gaming, Network Defense, Cybersecurity

MDA18-002 TITLE: Techniques for Real-time Hypervelocity Projectile fly-out Generation and Optimization

MDA - 11

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Battlespace, Information Systems


OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative battle management techniques to generate Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) fly-out trajectories in real time based on threat information for a higher probability of engagement success.

DESCRIPTION: Seek real-time closed-loop HVP fly-out trajectory generation and optimization methods based on real-time threat data inputs. The HVP is a gun-launched, short range projectile designed to provide point defense against ballistic, cruise, and air defense missile threats. Since each of these types of missile threats have significantly differing flight-profiles, it is desirable to calculate or adjust HVP fly-out trajectories in real time to take advantage of the differences in threat trajectories.

PHASE I: Develop and demonstrate proof of principle techniques and/or methodology for real-time trajectory generation and updates based on threat information. Design approaches should be modular to facilitate integration, scalability, upgrades, and maintenance. Provide a description of the technique(s) and the performance against conceptual threats.

PHASE II: Refine and update concept(s) based on Phase I results and demonstrate the impacts of threat foreknowledge and real-time tracks/measurements on HVP fly-out trajectory calculations. Demonstrate performance in a representative hardware-in-the-loop environment. Provide a detailed design, concept of operations, and assessment of engagement improvement against specific threats.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Demonstrate the new technologies via operation as part of a complete system or operation in a system-level testbed to allow for testing and evaluation in realistic scenarios. Market technologies developed under this solicitation to relevant government entities directly and/or transition them through vendors.

REFERENCES:1. R. O’Rourke. June 2017. “Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress.” Congressional Research Service.

2. https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Hypervelocity-Projectile

KEYWORDS: Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System, Hypervelocity Projectile, Fly-Out, Trajectory, Real-Time, Generation

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons


MDA - 12

MDA18-003 TITLE: Hyper-Velocity Projectile (HVP) Warhead Optimization for Lethality

OBJECTIVE: Design and develop a next generation HVP warhead to maximize warhead effectiveness/lethality against Ballistic Missile Re-entry Vehicles (BMRVs).

DESCRIPTION: Seek innovative payload designs for maximizing HVP warhead effectiveness/lethality using non-Hit-to-Kill warhead technology without adding supplementary sensors. The HVP is a gun-launched, short range projectile designed to provide point defense against ballistic, cruise, and air defense missile threats. The government is interested in next generation HVP warhead design/payload concepts for a notional 120 mm diameter projectile. Concepts should be scalable and be able to survive a minimum of a 30,000g gun environment.

PHASE I: Identify and examine one or more warhead concepts within the provided parameter constraints of the HVP warhead. Risk reduction experiments and proof-of-concept demonstrations are highly encouraged. Provide a preliminary design and an assessment of warhead effectiveness/lethality against generic threats. The performer is also strongly encouraged to collaborate with HVP vendors to ensure the applicability of the warhead technology and to initiate work towards technology transition.

PHASE II: Provide a detailed design of the prototype warhead to include an assessment of effectiveness/lethality against specific threats. Fabricate a prototype unit and test performance in representative environments. Test results should anchor models for predicting warhead performance in the operating environment against specific threats. Conduct an initial assessment of economic viability. Continue to collaborate with HVP vendors with the overall objective of commercializing the warhead in Phase III.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Conduct engineering and manufacturing development, test and evaluation and hardware qualification. Develop warhead payload(s) and test in a flight representative environment. Transition the warhead to HVP vendor(s) for system integration and testing.

REFERENCES:1. https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Hypervelocity-Projectile

2. R. O’Rourke. June 2017. “Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress.” Congressional Research Service.

KEYWORDS: Hypervelocity Projectile, Lethality, Warhead, Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons


OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative propulsion technologies for small interceptors that enable future missile defense application architectures.

DESCRIPTION: Seek innovative propulsion technologies for smaller interceptors to reduce total mass and volume while maintaining or improving performance. Additionally, innovative applications of propulsion and controls technologies should increase mission flexibility and safety. These small interceptors may range between 5 to 10 inches in diameter with sub-1000 lbf thrust for primary motors and sub-100 lbf thrust for control systems. These systems must also survive and operate through a range of environments (temperature, shock, and vibration).

MDA - 13

MDA18-004 TITLE: Advanced Exo-atmospheric Propulsion and Control Systems

Propulsive elements may utilize and advance traditional solid and liquid propulsion or alternative solutions. For example, electric propulsion has high efficiency but the thrust levels are not adequate for missile defense applications. Advancements in propellant chemistries should improve specific performance, packaging, operational flexibility, and maintenance/support requirements. Propulsive control technologies including thrust vector control (vectored nozzles, jet vanes, liquid injection, etc.) or conventional cruciform divert systems, should be capable of high vectoring magnitudes and response time at reduced system power, mass, and volume footprint. Propulsion system component design and material advancements enabling performance, packaging, durability, manufacturability, and cost improvements are desired. Examples of such technologies include but are not limited to high strength, high stiffness and lightweight motor cases, liner/insulation materials and processes.

PHASE I: Demonstrate proof of concept(s) of the proposed propulsion and controls technologies. Identify candidate methods, propellants, materials, designs and/or test capabilities. Develop interceptor geometry and performance models to validate achievement of the above-stated goals. Fabricate and characterize propellants and/or materials for component technologies or define proof of concept test. For propellant improvements, conduct research and experimental efforts to quantify potential benefits (e.g., impulse improvement, packaging improvement, storage and environmental benefits). Identify technology transition partner.

PHASE II: Perform appropriate characterization and testing, e.g. sub-scale propulsion tests, accelerated long term storage and / or cyclic environmental load compatibility testing. Work with a technology transition partner to develop and demonstrate prototype designs that incorporate the technology in a relevant test environment.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Conduct engineering and manufacturing development, test and evaluation and hardware qualification. Activities would include, but not be limited to, demonstration in a real system or operation in a system level test-bed with insertion planning for a missile defense interceptor.

REFERENCES:1. G. P. Sutton. 2001. "Rocket Propulsion Elements: an Introduction to the Engineering of Rockets." 7th Edition, John Wiley & Sons.

2. C. Moskowitz. May 2013. “How Electric Spacecraft Could Fly NASA to Mars.” Space.com, New York City, NY. http://www.space.com/21199-space-electric-propulsion-engines.html

3. B. Palaszewski. February 1997. “Propellant Technologies: A Persuasive Wave of Future Propulsion Benefits.” NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH. http://sbir.grc.nasa.gov/launch/Propellant.html

4. B.W. Gonser. 2013. "Modern Materials: Advances in Development and Applications." Elsevier.

5. W.A. Figueiredo. July 2013. "High Thrust to Weight Bipropellant Reentry Vehicle Thrust Vector Control thru Mico-Miniaturization" AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, Huntsville, AL.

KEYWORDS: Propulsion, Controls, Propellants, Materials, Packaging, Rocket Motor, Thrust Vector

MDA18-005 TITLE: Advanced High End Gyroscopes for Small Form Factor Inertial Measurement Unit Applications

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics

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

MDA - 14

accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement.

OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate advanced gyroscope technologies to enhance an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) high rate operation through capability and survivability for next generation missile defense applications.

DESCRIPTION: Seek innovations in gyroscope technologies which increase accuracy and decrease Size, Weight and Power (SWaP) while enabling continuous operation through 2 to 3 times higher G environments than current state of the art capability, with no more than 5% performance degradation. Gyroscopes employed in missile defense IMU applications for guidance, navigation and control encounter severe accelerations, shocks and vibrations during all phases of operation. IMU in flight systems (e.g. interceptors) are constrained by limits on size, weight, power and cost (SWAP-C) while requiring high performance and radiation environment operability. The proposed solution, when integrated with appropriate accelerometers, should fit within 2 times smaller packages than the current state of the art IMU packages. In addition, the proposed hardware solutions must also increase the ruggedness and survivability of gyroscopes by a factor of 2 to 3 over current shock and vibration environments.

Other desirable attributes of proposed gyroscope solutions include long operation times, operability in high temperature environments, operability through large thermal gradients, design simplicity, ease of manufacture, ease of integration into IMU systems, long duration storage with negligible performance degradation and low cost. Successful development of these gyroscopes should couple with ongoing high-g accelerometer developments to achieve a high end IMU capable of operating through the next generation of interceptor environments.

PHASE I: Design, develop and conduct feasibility/proof of concept study for the proposed technology to meet the desired performance requirements in high-g environments. Provide analysis and/or laboratory experimentation substantiating proposed gyroscope technology can operate through and survive high-g, severe shock, severe vibration and realistic radiation environments. The design should include how it will potentially be integrated into an IMU. Fabricate proof of principle prototypes and establish baseline performance parameters. Identify manufacturing risks and describe risk mitigation steps. At completion of this program, the preliminary design and detailed analysis should be documented for Phase II.

PHASE II: Optimize design(s) from Phase I to improve baseline performance, increase survivability and level of operability in realistic environments and radiation. Fabricate and test optimized gyroscopes in realistic environments and against standard military specifications to validate analytical models. The performer should collaborate with prime contractors and/or prime integrators as potential transition partners into an IMU. Conduct initial operational and evaluation testing of prototypes in realistic radiation environments. Provide the final design, test results and full IMU integration plans for the accelerometer. Produce a prototype accelerometer suitable for government testing.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Optimize designs as necessary for integration into an IMU system. Team with vendor/integrators and/or military prime contractor to develop the integrated IMU system and qualify performance and survivability. Work with the transition partner to establish a pathway to insert the technology in an existing or planned missile defense application. Demonstration could include, but is not limited to testing in a real system or a system level test-bed. Work with partners to conduct appropriate ground testing of the IMU prototype. Provide IMU prototypes to a government laboratory for independent test and validation.

REFERENCES:1. G. Yi, Y. Xie, Z. Qi, and B. Xi. 2015. “Modeling of Acceleration Influence on Hemispherical Resonator Gyro Forcing System.” Hindawi. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2015: ID 104041.

1998. Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Air Force Hypersonic Technology Program, National Research Council, Review and Evaluation of the Air Force HypersonicTechnology Program, ISBN: 0-309-52236-6.

3. Undated. Department of Defense. MIL-STD-810, Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests. MDA – 25.

MDA - 15

4. Undated. Air Force Space Command and Space and Missile Systems Center document. Test Requirements for Launch, Upper-Stage and Space Vehicles. SMC-S-016.

5. Northrop Grumman. 2013. LN200 FOG Family Advanced Airborne IMU/AHRS. http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/LN200FOG/Documents/ln200.pdf

6. http://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/communication-nav-and-surveillance/inertial-navigation/defense-navigation/inertial-measurement-units/hg1700;https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/hg1930

KEYWORDS: Gyroscope, Sensors, Micro-Electronics, Inertial Measurement Unit, Guidance, Navigation and Control

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes, Weapons


OBJECTIVE: Develop lightweight structural components for future missile defense interceptors and/or kill vehicles.

DESCRIPTION: The government is exploring alternative architectures that require small and lightweight interceptors and kill vehicles. These interceptors and kill vehicles may be similar to tactical missiles, ranging between 5 to 10 inches in diameter. This interceptor architecture is only conceptual at the time of this topic but will require significant reduction of inert mass as innovative lightweight structures will be critical to achieve the anticipated performance. These small interceptors will need to operate through a range of environmental conditions (temperature, shock, and vibration). Proposers should focus on component technologies such as seeker baffles, bulkheads, protective coverings, shielding, interfaces, deployment systems, separation systems, or housing structures of electronic components. Components should be manufactured with materials that possess high specific modulus and/or specific strength. This can be achieved with novel materials and/or manufacturing processes. Proposers should estimate the performance improvements of their technology and compare to the state-of-the-art. Proposed solutions should be sensitive to cost while providing high reliability.

PHASE I: Conduct trade studies, preliminary designs, experiments, modeling, and/or analytical efforts that demonstrate feasibility of the technology innovation. Identify component technology to advance beyond the state of the art. Provide technical and programmatic risks associated with the component technology. Fabricate and test appropriate parameters to generate a limited statistical analysis. Identify a technology transition partner.

PHASE II: Build a prototype demonstrating that the proposed design represents a feasible approach. Work with a technology transition partner to identity insertion opportunities. The proposer should document and provide a lessons learned summary about the results and a manufacturing tolerance study. Conduct statistical analysis where applicable to the project.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Develop and execute a plan to manufacture components developed in Phase II, and transition this technology to the appropriate technology transition partner(s) for supplemental engineering, integration, and testing.

REFERENCES:

MDA - 16

MDA18-006 TITLE: Lightweight Structures for Future Interceptors

1194. MIL-HDBK-5G. “Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures.” http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA322636

2. D. Gay, V. Suong. 2007. Composite Materials - Design and Applications (2nd Edition). Taylor & Francis.

2010. Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS-05). Battelle Memorial Institute.

KEYWORDS: Composites, Structures, Metals, Honeycomb, Manufacturing, Fiber, Shielding, Missiles

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics


OBJECTIVE: Develop radiation hardened electronic components capable of surviving and operating through exposure to radiation environments encountered in space.

DESCRIPTION: Seek design and fabrication methods of electrical components and circuits based on hardened components. Hardened circuits/components should be able to survive and operate through space radiation environments with recommended total ionizing dose (TID) >300 krads (Si), single event upsets (SEU) < 10-10 errors/bit-day, and immunity to single event latch-up (SEL) at linear energy transfer (LET) levels > 100 MeV cm2/mg.

Electronic components and systems exposed to radiation in space may experience power resets, safing (de-arming), performance degradation, and/or temporary or permanent failure due to cumulative effects of long-term exposure or high energetic particle and/or photon fluence. Radiation sources in space include particles geo-magnetically confined in radiation belts (protons, electrons, heavy ions); particles from solar winds, coronal mass ejections (proton rich) or flares (heavy ion rich); omnidirectional free space particles (galactic cosmic rays, heavy ions); or particles and photons from man-made events (X-rays, Gamma-rays, neutrons, radioactive debris) as well as electro-magnetic pulse (EMP). Typically, systems employ a combination of methods for radiation protection: shielding, part redundancy, circumvent and recovery (C&R), rad-hard by design (RHD), and hardened parts. Using shielding and redundant parts imposes mass penalties. C&R places a system in a protective mode until a radiation event passes limiting system functionality during the down time. RHD develops radiation tolerant circuits that minimize single point failures. The hardened parts approach involves design, fabrication, selection and screening of parts for radiation tolerance.

New manufacturing techniques and recent developments in nano-materials create an opportunity for developing electronic components insensitive to radiation effects. In particular, vacuum field effect component technology (e.g. diodes, triodes, transistors) and combinations of components (e.g. operational amplifiers, simple logic devices) constructed using high density three dimensional (3D) fabrication techniques, are of interest as they could lead to analog electronics and digital integrated circuits with inherent operate through capability requiring minimal shielding and/or C&R. Another potential opportunity lies in memory development, e.g. resistive memories that store information using charge retention, making them less sensitive to SEU caused by high-energy particles.

PHASE I: Design radiation insensitive component(s), simple circuit(s), and/or 3D fabrication technique(s). Provide analysis substantiating proposed component(s), simple circuit(s), and/or 3D fabrication technique(s) can survive and

MDA - 17

MDA18-007 TITLE: Radiation Hardened Electronics and Techniques

operate through realistic radiation environments. Fabricate simple proof of principle prototypes and establish baseline performance parameters. Conduct initial operational and evaluation testing of prototypes in realistic radiation environments. Characterize survivability and operability in realistic radiation environments and standard military specified range for thermal cycling.

PHASE II: Optimize design(s) to improve baseline performance, increase survivability and level of operability in realistic radiation environments. Fabricate and test optimized parts in realistic radiation environments and against standard military temperature cycling specification. Work with a vendor/trusted foundry/fabrication house and/or military prime contractor on part(s) manufacturability/producibility. Incorporate hardened parts in a representative space avionic subsystem/system application and test in realistic space radiation environments.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Team with a vendor/trusted foundry/fabrication house and/or military prime contractor to develop and space qualify radiation-hardened parts. Work with the transition partner to establish a pathway to insert technology into an existing or planned missile defense application.

REFERENCES:1. G. C. Messenger and M. S. Ash. May 1992. The Effects of Radiation on Electronic Systems, Springer, 2nd Ed.

2. R. H. Maurer, et.al. 2008. “Harsh Environments - Space Radiation Environment Effects and Mitigation.” Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol. 28: No. 1.

3. H. Johnston, June 1998. "Radiation effects in advanced microelectronics technologies." IEEE Trans. on Nuclear Science, Vol. 45: No. 3: 1339-1354.

4. Jin-Woo Han, Jae Sub Oh, and M. Meyyappa. May 2014. “Cofabrication of Vacuum Field Emission Transistor (VFET) and MOSFET.” IEEE Trans. on Nanotechnology, Vol. 13: No. 3.

5. Shimeng Yu and Pai-Yu Chen. April 2016. “Emerging Memory Technologies - Recent Trends and Prospects.” IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine, 8(2): 43-56.

KEYWORDS: Radiation Hardened Microelectronics, Radiation Hardening, Space Electronics, Nuclear Weapon Effects, Operate Through, Nuclear Survivability, Fault Tolerant Computing, Single-Event Effects, Total Ionizing Dose, Linear Energy Transfer, Single-Event Latch-up, Single-Event Upset

MDA18-008 TITLE: Methodologies for the Manufacture of Non-Traditional Kill Vehicle Primary Structures

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Materials/Processes, Space Platforms, Weapons

OBJECTIVE: Develop manufacturing methods to minimize kill vehicle (KV) total volume while maintaining (or improving) kinematic performance via improved volumetric efficiency. Secondary objectives should address whether the proposed manufacturing techniques favor modularity in design, rapid prototyping, increased production rate, and/or reduced lifecycle costs.

DESCRIPTION: Seeking non-traditional manufacturing techniques (such as additive manufacturing, lightweight composites, injection molding, and/or other methods) to produce KV primary structures that improve volumetric efficiency, improve system performance via increased kinematic capability within the same volume, or maintain kinematic performance but reduce KV total volume. Conventional KVs are manufactured with a central bus structure that serves as a mounting surface for vehicle components which is wasteful from a packaging standpoint as unutilized space could be repurposed for positive applications such as propellant storage. Methodologies and manufacturing processes are desired that address fundamental issues such as: how rapidly can the design of the primary structure be modified; what is the cost relative to a traditional design; are there synergistic opportunities to

MDA - 18

integrate propellant storage into the primary structure, and if so, does the structure have the necessary integrity to serve as pressure vessel sufficient for propellant storage; how would the synergistic structure be designed to optimize volume while concurrently improving modularity, producibility and system performance?

Volume and packaging constraints on future KV designs necessitate the desire for innovative methods for manufacturing lightweight kill vehicle primary structures with the goal of optimizing volumetric efficiency while concurrently improving modularity, producibility and system performance. Manufacturing techniques that facilitate modular KV designs that are field serviceable and upgradeable are also highly desired.

PHASE I: Perform analysis of innovative manufacturing methods that can be applied to space vehicle-structures for the purposes of improving volumetric efficiencies without sacrificing the structural integrity and vehicle performance relative to a conventional design. Develop the proposed hardware design concepts through experimentation to demonstrate the feasibility of performance, volume and weight optimized solutions.

PHASE II: Develop prototype(s) for primary component(s) of a representative space vehicle, such as propellant tanks or main bus structure that apply the innovative manufacturing techniques developed in Phase I. The intent being twofold, the first to verify that the proposed manufacturing method performs as intended and, the second to demonstrate that the manufacturing technique achieves the structural integrity and volumetric efficiencies sought.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Integrate the proposed manufacturing technique(s) into a critical interceptor application and generalize the application for broader use across government programs and commercial applications. Demonstrate applicability in one or more element systems, subsystems, or components. Transition promising manufacturing methods/designs to a transition partner to incorporate into future system components.

REFERENCES:1. N. Werkheiser. November 2014. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center. “Overview of NASA Initiatives in 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing.”

2. B. Thomsen, M. Kokkolaras, T. Månsson and O. Isaksson. September 2016. “Quantitative Assessment of the Impact of Alternative Manufacturing Methods on Aeroengine Component Lifing Decisions.”

KEYWORDS: Innovative Manufacturing, Alternative Manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing, Volumetric Efficiencies, Space Vehicles, Integral Structural Tankage, Lightweight, Modular, Evolvable, High Performance

Approved for Public Release17-MDA-9314 (16 August 17)

MDA - 19