637 lines
20 KiB
Markdown
637 lines
20 KiB
Markdown
# DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Grant Writing Guidelines
|
|
|
|
## Agency Overview
|
|
|
|
**Mission**: Make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security
|
|
|
|
**Tagline**: "Creating breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security"
|
|
|
|
**Annual Budget**: ~$4 billion
|
|
|
|
**Website**: https://www.darpa.mil
|
|
|
|
**Key Characteristics**:
|
|
- High-risk, high-reward research
|
|
- Focused on revolutionary breakthroughs, not incremental advances
|
|
- Technology transition to military and commercial applications
|
|
- Program managers with broad autonomy
|
|
- ~3-5 year programs with defined end goals
|
|
- Strong emphasis on prototypes and demonstrations
|
|
- "DARPA-hard" problems that others won't or can't tackle
|
|
|
|
**The DARPA Difference**:
|
|
- NOT basic research (that's ONR, AFOSR, ARO)
|
|
- NOT development and procurement (that's service acquisition)
|
|
- Focused on proof-of-concept to prototype stage
|
|
- Tolerates and expects failure in pursuit of breakthroughs
|
|
- Rapid transition to operational use
|
|
|
|
## DARPA Organization
|
|
|
|
### Six Technical Offices
|
|
|
|
#### 1. BTO (Biological Technologies Office)
|
|
**Focus**: Biology as technology, human-machine interfaces, synthetic biology
|
|
|
|
**Example Programs**:
|
|
- Neural interfaces and brain-computer interfaces
|
|
- Synthetic biology and living foundries
|
|
- Pandemic prevention and response
|
|
- Human performance enhancement
|
|
- Biotechnology for manufacturing
|
|
|
|
#### 2. DSO (Defense Sciences Office)
|
|
**Focus**: High-risk, high-payoff research in physical and mathematical sciences
|
|
|
|
**Example Programs**:
|
|
- Novel materials and chemistry
|
|
- Quantum technologies
|
|
- Electromagnetics and photonics
|
|
- Mathematics and algorithms
|
|
- Fundamental limits of physics
|
|
|
|
#### 3. I2O (Information Innovation Office)
|
|
**Focus**: Information advantage through computing, communications, and cyber
|
|
|
|
**Example Programs**:
|
|
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning
|
|
- Cybersecurity and cyber resilience
|
|
- Communications and networking
|
|
- Data analytics and processing
|
|
- Human-computer interaction
|
|
|
|
#### 4. MTO (Microsystems Technology Office)
|
|
**Focus**: Microelectronics, photonics, and heterogeneous microsystems
|
|
|
|
**Example Programs**:
|
|
- Advanced electronics and integrated circuits
|
|
- Photonics and optical systems
|
|
- Novel computational architectures
|
|
- RF and millimeter-wave systems
|
|
- MEMS and sensors
|
|
|
|
#### 5. STO (Strategic Technology Office)
|
|
**Focus**: Technologies for space, air, maritime, and ground systems
|
|
|
|
**Example Programs**:
|
|
- Autonomous systems (air, ground, sea, space)
|
|
- Advanced propulsion and power
|
|
- Space technologies
|
|
- Electronic warfare
|
|
- Long-range precision fires
|
|
|
|
#### 6. TTO (Tactical Technology Office)
|
|
**Focus**: Near-term technologies for ground, maritime, and expeditionary forces
|
|
|
|
**Example Programs**:
|
|
- Tactical autonomy
|
|
- Advanced weapons
|
|
- Urban operations
|
|
- Maneuver and logistics
|
|
- Special operations support
|
|
|
|
## How DARPA Works
|
|
|
|
### Program Manager-Centric Model
|
|
|
|
**Program Managers (PMs)**:
|
|
- ~100 PMs across DARPA
|
|
- Hired on 3-5 year rotations from academia, industry, government labs
|
|
- Have significant autonomy to create and run programs
|
|
- Identify "DARPA-hard" problems and solutions
|
|
- Manage portfolios of 10-20 projects
|
|
|
|
**PM Lifecycle**:
|
|
1. **Develop vision**: Identify transformative opportunity
|
|
2. **Create program**: Design research thrusts and metrics
|
|
3. **Issue BAA**: Broad Agency Announcement for proposals
|
|
4. **Select teams**: Choose performers and structure program
|
|
5. **Manage program**: Track milestones, adjust course, transition technology
|
|
6. **Transition**: Hand off successful technologies to services or industry
|
|
|
|
**Implication for Proposers**:
|
|
- PMs have the vision—your job is to execute it
|
|
- Contact PM before proposing (almost always required)
|
|
- Understand PM's technical vision and goals
|
|
- Build relationship with PM (within ethical bounds)
|
|
|
|
### The "DARPA-Hard" Test
|
|
|
|
**Three Questions Every DARPA Program Must Answer**:
|
|
|
|
1. **What are you trying to do?**
|
|
- Articulate objectives using absolutely no jargon
|
|
- Clear, specific technical goal
|
|
|
|
2. **How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?**
|
|
- What's the current state of the art?
|
|
- Why are current approaches insufficient?
|
|
- What fundamental barriers exist?
|
|
|
|
3. **What is new in your approach, and why do you think it will be successful?**
|
|
- What's the breakthrough insight or capability?
|
|
- Why hasn't this been done before?
|
|
- What's changed to make it possible now?
|
|
|
|
**Additional Considerations**:
|
|
- **Who cares?** (What's the national security impact?)
|
|
- **What if you're right?** (What becomes possible?)
|
|
- **What if you're wrong?** (Is the risk acceptable?)
|
|
- **What if you succeed?** (Is there a transition path?)
|
|
|
|
**DARPA Seeks**:
|
|
- **High Risk**: 50% chance of failure is acceptable
|
|
- **High Reward**: 10x improvement, not 10% improvement
|
|
- **Measurable**: Clear metrics of success
|
|
- **Transitional**: Path to operational use or commercial adoption
|
|
|
|
## Types of DARPA Solicitations
|
|
|
|
### 1. Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs)
|
|
|
|
**Most Common Mechanism**: Open solicitations for specific program areas
|
|
|
|
**Characteristics**:
|
|
- Issued by program managers for specific programs
|
|
- Describe technical objectives and research thrusts
|
|
- Multiple submission deadlines or rolling submission
|
|
- Full proposals typically 20-40 pages
|
|
- Often require abstract or white paper first
|
|
|
|
**Types of BAAs**:
|
|
|
|
**Program BAAs**: For specific named programs
|
|
- Clear technical objectives and metrics
|
|
- Defined research areas (thrusts)
|
|
- Specified deliverables and milestones
|
|
- Known PM with clear vision
|
|
|
|
**Office-Wide BAAs**: General solicitations by technical office
|
|
- Broader scope, less prescriptive
|
|
- Looking for transformative ideas
|
|
- More flexibility in approach
|
|
- May have multiple areas of interest
|
|
|
|
### 2. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
|
|
|
|
**For Small Businesses**:
|
|
- **Phase I**: $150K-$250K, 6-9 months (feasibility)
|
|
- **Phase II**: $1M-$2M, 2 years (development)
|
|
- **Phase III**: Non-SBIR funds (commercialization)
|
|
|
|
### 3. Proposers Days and Special Notices
|
|
|
|
**Proposers Day**: Pre-solicitation event
|
|
- PM presents program vision and objectives
|
|
- Q&A with potential proposers
|
|
- Networking for team formation
|
|
- Often required or strongly encouraged to attend
|
|
|
|
**Special Notices**: Requests for Information (RFIs), teaming opportunities
|
|
|
|
## DARPA Proposal Structure
|
|
|
|
**Note**: Format varies by BAA. **Always follow the specific BAA instructions precisely.**
|
|
|
|
### Typical Structure
|
|
|
|
#### Volume 1: Technical and Management Proposal (20-40 pages)
|
|
|
|
**Section 1: Executive Summary** (1-2 pages)
|
|
- Overview of proposed research
|
|
- Technical approach and innovation
|
|
- Expected outcomes and deliverables
|
|
- Team qualifications
|
|
- Alignment with BAA objectives
|
|
|
|
**Section 2: Goals and Impact** (2-3 pages)
|
|
- Statement of the problem
|
|
- Importance and national security relevance
|
|
- Current state of the art and limitations
|
|
- How your work will advance the state of the art
|
|
- Impact if successful (What if true? Who cares?)
|
|
- Alignment with DARPA program goals
|
|
|
|
**Section 3: Technical Approach and Innovation** (10-20 pages)
|
|
- Detailed technical plan organized by phase or thrust
|
|
- Novel approaches and why they will work
|
|
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
|
|
- Preliminary results or proof-of-concept data
|
|
- Technical barriers and how to overcome them
|
|
- Innovation and differentiation from existing work
|
|
|
|
**Organized by Phase** (typical):
|
|
|
|
**Phase 1 (Feasibility)**: 12-18 months
|
|
- Technical objectives and milestones
|
|
- Approach and methodology
|
|
- Expected outcomes
|
|
- Metrics for success
|
|
- Go/no-go criteria for Phase 2
|
|
|
|
**Phase 2 (Development)**: 18-24 months
|
|
- Building on Phase 1 results
|
|
- System integration and optimization
|
|
- Testing and validation
|
|
- Prototype development
|
|
- Metrics and evaluation
|
|
|
|
**Phase 3 (Demonstration)**: 12-18 months (if applicable)
|
|
- Field testing or operational demonstration
|
|
- Transition activities
|
|
- Handoff to transition partner
|
|
|
|
**Section 4: Capabilities and Resources** (2-3 pages)
|
|
- Team qualifications and expertise
|
|
- Facilities and equipment
|
|
- Relevant prior work and publications
|
|
- Subcontractor and collaborator roles
|
|
- Organizational structure
|
|
|
|
**Section 5: Statement of Work (SOW)** (3-5 pages)
|
|
- Detailed task breakdown
|
|
- Deliverables for each task
|
|
- Milestones and metrics
|
|
- Timeline (Gantt chart)
|
|
- Dependencies and critical path
|
|
- Government furnished property or information (if applicable)
|
|
|
|
**Section 6: Schedule and Milestones** (1-2 pages)
|
|
- Integrated master schedule
|
|
- Key decision points
|
|
- Deliverable schedule
|
|
- Go/no-go criteria
|
|
- Reporting and meeting schedule
|
|
|
|
**Section 7: Technology Transition Plan** (2-3 pages)
|
|
- Potential transition partners (military services, industry)
|
|
- Pathway to operational use or commercialization
|
|
- Market or operational analysis
|
|
- Transition activities during the program
|
|
- IP and licensing strategy (if applicable)
|
|
|
|
#### Volume 2: Cost Proposal (separate)
|
|
|
|
**Detailed Budget**:
|
|
- Costs by phase, task, and year
|
|
- Labor (personnel, hours, rates)
|
|
- Materials and supplies
|
|
- Equipment
|
|
- Travel
|
|
- Subcontracts
|
|
- Other direct costs
|
|
- Indirect costs (overhead, G&A)
|
|
- Fee or profit (for industry)
|
|
|
|
**Cost Narrative**:
|
|
- Justification for each cost element
|
|
- Labor categories and rates
|
|
- Basis of estimate
|
|
- Cost realism analysis
|
|
- Supporting documentation
|
|
|
|
**Supporting Documentation**:
|
|
- Cost accounting standards
|
|
- Approved indirect rate agreements
|
|
- Subcontractor quotes or cost proposals
|
|
|
|
#### Additional Volumes (if required)
|
|
|
|
**Attachments**:
|
|
- Quad charts (1-slide summary)
|
|
- Relevant publications or technical papers
|
|
- Letters of commitment from collaborators
|
|
- Facilities descriptions
|
|
- Equipment lists
|
|
|
|
## Review Criteria
|
|
|
|
### DARPA Evaluation Factors (Typical)
|
|
|
|
**Primary Criteria** (usually equal weight):
|
|
|
|
1. **Overall Scientific and Technical Merit**
|
|
- Technical soundness and feasibility
|
|
- Innovation and novelty
|
|
- Likelihood of achieving objectives
|
|
- Technical approach and methodology
|
|
- Understanding of problem and prior art
|
|
- Risk and risk mitigation
|
|
|
|
2. **Potential Contribution and Relevance to DARPA Mission**
|
|
- Alignment with program objectives
|
|
- National security impact
|
|
- Advancement over state of the art
|
|
- Potential for revolutionary breakthrough
|
|
- "What if true? Who cares?" test
|
|
|
|
3. **Cost Realism and Reasonableness**
|
|
- Budget aligned with technical plan
|
|
- Costs justified and realistic
|
|
- Value for investment
|
|
- Cost versus benefit analysis
|
|
|
|
4. **Capabilities and Related Experience**
|
|
- Team qualifications and track record
|
|
- Facilities and resources adequate
|
|
- Relevant prior work
|
|
- Ability to deliver on time and on budget
|
|
- Management approach
|
|
|
|
5. **Technology Transition**
|
|
- Pathway to operational use or market
|
|
- Transition partnerships
|
|
- Market analysis (if applicable)
|
|
- Plans for follow-on development
|
|
- IP strategy supporting transition
|
|
|
|
### The "Heilmeier Catechism"
|
|
|
|
**DARPA uses this set of questions** (created by former DARPA director George Heilmeier):
|
|
|
|
1. What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
|
|
2. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
|
|
3. What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
|
|
4. Who cares? If you succeed, what difference will it make?
|
|
5. What are the risks?
|
|
6. How much will it cost?
|
|
7. How long will it take?
|
|
8. What are the mid-term and final "exams" to check for success?
|
|
|
|
**Your proposal should clearly answer all eight questions.**
|
|
|
|
## DARPA Proposing Strategy
|
|
|
|
### Before Writing
|
|
|
|
**1. Contact the Program Manager**
|
|
- Email PM to introduce yourself and idea
|
|
- Request call to discuss fit with program
|
|
- Attend Proposers Day if available
|
|
- Ask clarifying questions about BAA
|
|
|
|
**2. Form a Strong Team**
|
|
- DARPA values multidisciplinary teams
|
|
- Include complementary expertise
|
|
- Mix of academia, industry, government labs
|
|
- Clearly defined roles
|
|
- Prior collaboration history (if possible)
|
|
|
|
**3. Understand the Vision**
|
|
- What is the PM trying to achieve?
|
|
- What technical barriers need to be overcome?
|
|
- What does success look like?
|
|
- What are the program metrics?
|
|
|
|
**4. Identify Transition Path**
|
|
- Who will use the technology?
|
|
- What's the path from prototype to product?
|
|
- Who are potential transition partners?
|
|
- What's the market or operational need?
|
|
|
|
### Writing the Proposal
|
|
|
|
**Lead with Impact**:
|
|
- Open with the "so what?"
|
|
- National security or economic impact
|
|
- What becomes possible if you succeed?
|
|
|
|
**Be Concrete and Specific**:
|
|
- Clear technical objectives with metrics
|
|
- Measurable milestones
|
|
- Quantitative targets (10x improvement, not "better")
|
|
- Specific deliverables
|
|
|
|
**Demonstrate Innovation**:
|
|
- What's the breakthrough?
|
|
- Why hasn't this been done before?
|
|
- What's changed to make it possible now?
|
|
- How is this different from evolutionary approaches?
|
|
|
|
**Address Risk Head-On**:
|
|
- Identify technical risks explicitly
|
|
- Explain mitigation strategies
|
|
- Show that you've thought through failure modes
|
|
- DARPA expects risk—don't hide it, manage it
|
|
|
|
**Show You Can Execute**:
|
|
- Detailed project plan with milestones
|
|
- Team with relevant track record
|
|
- Realistic schedule and budget
|
|
- Go/no-go decision points
|
|
- Management approach for complex programs
|
|
|
|
**Emphasize Transition**:
|
|
- Who will use the results?
|
|
- Path to operationalization or commercialization
|
|
- Engagement with potential users during program
|
|
- IP strategy that enables transition
|
|
|
|
### Common Mistakes
|
|
|
|
1. **Incremental Research**: Proposing 10% improvement instead of 10x
|
|
2. **Academic Focus**: Pure research without application focus
|
|
3. **No Transition Plan**: No pathway to use or commercialization
|
|
4. **Ignoring PM Vision**: Not aligned with program objectives
|
|
5. **Vague Metrics**: "Improve" or "enhance" instead of quantitative targets
|
|
6. **Underestimating Risk**: Claiming low risk (DARPA wants high risk, high reward)
|
|
7. **Weak Team**: Insufficient expertise or poorly defined roles
|
|
8. **No Differentiation**: Similar to existing efforts without clear advantage
|
|
9. **Ignoring BAA**: Not following proposal format or requirements
|
|
10. **Late Contact with PM**: Waiting until proposal due date to engage
|
|
|
|
## DARPA Contracting and Performance
|
|
|
|
### Award Types
|
|
|
|
**Procurement Contracts**: Most common for industry
|
|
- Firm Fixed Price (FFP)
|
|
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)
|
|
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF)
|
|
|
|
**Grants and Cooperative Agreements**: For universities and nonprofits
|
|
- Grants: Minimal government involvement
|
|
- Cooperative Agreements: Substantial government involvement
|
|
|
|
**Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs)**: Flexible arrangements
|
|
- For research not requiring FAR compliance
|
|
- Faster, more flexible terms
|
|
- Common for consortia and partnerships
|
|
|
|
### Program Execution
|
|
|
|
**Kickoff Meeting**: Program launch with all performers
|
|
- PM presents program vision and goals
|
|
- Performers present approaches
|
|
- Technical exchange and collaboration
|
|
|
|
**Quarterly Reviews**: Progress reviews (virtual or in-person)
|
|
- Technical progress against milestones
|
|
- Challenges and solutions
|
|
- Path forward
|
|
- PM feedback and course corrections
|
|
|
|
**Annual or Phase Reviews**: Major assessment points
|
|
- Comprehensive technical review
|
|
- Go/no-go decisions
|
|
- Budget and schedule adjustments
|
|
|
|
**Site Visits**: PM and team visit performer sites
|
|
- See technical work firsthand
|
|
- Deep dive on specific areas
|
|
- Team building and collaboration
|
|
|
|
**Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs)**: Deep dives on technical topics
|
|
- Cross-performer collaboration
|
|
- Sharing of results and approaches
|
|
- Problem-solving sessions
|
|
|
|
### Deliverables and Reporting
|
|
|
|
**Monthly Reports**: Brief progress updates
|
|
- Technical progress
|
|
- Budget status
|
|
- Issues and concerns
|
|
|
|
**Quarterly Reports**: Detailed technical reporting
|
|
- Accomplishments against milestones
|
|
- Data and results
|
|
- Upcoming activities
|
|
- Publications and IP
|
|
|
|
**Final Report**: Comprehensive program summary
|
|
- Technical achievements
|
|
- Lessons learned
|
|
- Transition activities
|
|
- Future directions
|
|
|
|
**Technical Data and Prototypes**: Specified in contract
|
|
- Software and code
|
|
- Hardware prototypes
|
|
- Data sets
|
|
- Documentation
|
|
|
|
## DARPA Culture and Expectations
|
|
|
|
### High Risk is Expected
|
|
|
|
- DARPA programs should have ~50% probability of failure
|
|
- Failure is acceptable if lessons are learned
|
|
- "Fail fast" to redirect resources
|
|
- Transparency about challenges valued
|
|
|
|
### Rapid Pivots
|
|
|
|
- PM may redirect program based on results
|
|
- Flexibility to pursue unexpected opportunities
|
|
- Willingness to stop unproductive efforts
|
|
- Adaptability is key
|
|
|
|
### Transition Focus
|
|
|
|
- Technology must have a path to use
|
|
- Engagement with transition partners during program
|
|
- Demonstrate prototypes and capabilities
|
|
- Handoff to services or industry
|
|
|
|
### Collaboration and Teaming
|
|
|
|
- Performers expected to collaborate
|
|
- Share results and insights (within IP bounds)
|
|
- Attend all program meetings
|
|
- Support overall program goals, not just own project
|
|
|
|
## Recent DARPA Priorities and Programs
|
|
|
|
### Key Technology Areas (2024-2025)
|
|
|
|
**Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy**:
|
|
- Trustworthy AI
|
|
- AI reasoning and understanding
|
|
- Human-AI teaming
|
|
- Autonomous systems across domains
|
|
|
|
**Quantum Technologies**:
|
|
- Quantum computing and algorithms
|
|
- Quantum sensing and metrology
|
|
- Quantum communications
|
|
- Post-quantum cryptography
|
|
|
|
**Biotechnology**:
|
|
- Pandemic prevention and response
|
|
- Synthetic biology
|
|
- Human performance
|
|
- Bio-manufacturing
|
|
|
|
**Microelectronics and Computing**:
|
|
- Advanced chip design and manufacturing
|
|
- Novel computing architectures
|
|
- 3D heterogeneous integration
|
|
- RF and millimeter-wave systems
|
|
|
|
**Hypersonics and Advanced Materials**:
|
|
- Hypersonic weapons and defense
|
|
- Advanced materials and manufacturing
|
|
- Thermal management
|
|
- Propulsion
|
|
|
|
**Space Technologies**:
|
|
- Space domain awareness
|
|
- On-orbit servicing and manufacturing
|
|
- Small satellite technologies
|
|
- Space-based intelligence
|
|
|
|
**Network Technologies**:
|
|
- Secure communications
|
|
- Resilient networks
|
|
- Spectrum dominance
|
|
- Cyber defense
|
|
|
|
## Tips for Competitive DARPA Proposals
|
|
|
|
### Do's
|
|
|
|
✅ **Contact PM early** - Before writing, discuss your idea
|
|
✅ **Attend Proposers Day** - Essential for understanding program
|
|
✅ **Form strong team** - Complementary expertise, clear roles
|
|
✅ **Be bold and ambitious** - 10x goals, not 10% improvements
|
|
✅ **Quantify everything** - Specific metrics and targets
|
|
✅ **Address transition** - Clear path to operational use
|
|
✅ **Identify risks explicitly** - And explain mitigation
|
|
✅ **Show preliminary results** - Proof of concept or feasibility
|
|
✅ **Follow BAA exactly** - Format, page limits, content requirements
|
|
✅ **Emphasize innovation** - What's revolutionary about your approach?
|
|
|
|
### Don'ts
|
|
|
|
❌ **Don't propose incremental research** - DARPA wants breakthroughs
|
|
❌ **Don't ignore national security relevance** - "Who cares?" matters
|
|
❌ **Don't be vague** - Specific objectives, metrics, deliverables
|
|
❌ **Don't hide risk** - DARPA expects and values high-risk research
|
|
❌ **Don't forget transition** - Technology must have path to use
|
|
❌ **Don't propose basic research** - That's for ONR, AFOSR, ARO
|
|
❌ **Don't exceed page limits** - Automatic rejection
|
|
❌ **Don't ignore PM feedback** - They're setting the direction
|
|
❌ **Don't propose alone if team needed** - DARPA values strong teams
|
|
❌ **Don't submit without PM contact** - Critical to gauge fit
|
|
|
|
## Resources
|
|
|
|
- **DARPA Website**: https://www.darpa.mil
|
|
- **DARPA Opportunities**: https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities
|
|
- **BAA Listings**: https://beta.sam.gov (search "DARPA")
|
|
- **DARPA Social Media**: Twitter @DARPA (PMs often announce programs)
|
|
- **SBIR/STTR**: https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses
|
|
- **Heilmeier Catechism**: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/heilmeier-catechism
|
|
|
|
### Key Contacts
|
|
|
|
- **DARPA Contracting**: via BAA points of contact
|
|
- **Program Managers**: Contact info in BAAs and program pages
|
|
- **SBIR/STTR Office**: sbir@darpa.mil
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Key Takeaway**: DARPA seeks revolutionary breakthroughs that advance national security, not incremental research. Successful proposals articulate clear, measurable objectives (answering "what if true?"), demonstrate innovative approaches to "DARPA-hard" problems, include strong multidisciplinary teams, proactively address technical risks, and provide realistic paths to transition. Early engagement with the Program Manager is essential—DARPA is a PM-driven agency where understanding the vision is critical to success.
|
|
|