Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of Defense (DOD) Primer for Researchers
This primer is designed to provide academic researchers unfamiliar with the Department of Defense (DoD) a general understanding of the department’s basic organization, distribution of decision-making and funding profile.
Prepared by :
Dr. Michelle S. Atchison
Associate Vice Chancellor
Office of Federal Relations, Washington DC
202-955-9091, [email protected] September 2013
DRAFT
1
Table of Content PAGE
PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
SECTION I - ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN DOD……………………………….. 2
FUNDING…………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 TERMS OF REFERENCE………………………………………………………………………. 6 Alignment of TRl, MRL, and Acquisition processes SECTION II - CURRENT RESEARCH LANDSCAPE……………………………………………… 7 S&T Investments and Area Roadmaps………………………………….. 9 Key Programs and Initiatives…………………………………………………. 11 Basic Research and Historic Perspectives for Labs…….…………… 12 OSD Research Related Staff…………………………………………………… 13 SECTION III – FINDING RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES……. 15 BUSINESS AREA ANNOUNCEMENT………………………………………………………. 15 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION……………………………………………………………… 15 SMALL BUSINESS VENUES……………………………………………………………………. 16
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH VENUES…………………………………………………………… 17 Centers of Excellence (COE) Applied Research Centers/Labs (UARC) UNIVERSITY INITIATIVES……………………………………………………………………….. 18
NAVY RESEARCH………………………………………………………………………. 19 AIR FORCE ……………………………………………………………………………….. 20
INDIVIDUAL VENUES……………………………………………………………………………. 20 OTHER DOD RELATED PROGRAMS/INITIATIVES…………………………………… 21 NRO Congressionally Directed Medical Research LINKS FOR DEFENSE INNOVATION MARKETPLACE ………………………………. 22
AND FEDERAL LAB CONSORTIUM ATTACHMENTS:
1. TECHNOLOGY READINESS DEFINITION TABLE………………………………… 23 2. PARTNERSHIP MECHANISM TABLE…………………………………………………. 25 3. EXAMPLE OF KEY QUESTIONS, QUAD TEMPLATE, and
WHITE PAPER FORMAT……………………………………………………………. 27 4. RESOURCE LINKS……………………………………………………………………………. 28
DRAFT
2
Preface
This primer is designed to provide academic researchers unfamiliar with the Department of Defense (DoD) a general understanding of the department’s basic organization, distribution of decision-making and funding profile. Unlike other federal agencies that sponsor research such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) which focuses on health advancement and National Science Foundation (NSF) on a broad set of individual research efforts, DOD’s focus on research is in support of the warfighter and advancing overall national security capability. While DOD is one of the largest research sponsors with Universities across a wide-spectrum of technologies, ultimately, the Department focuses the outcomes of research to establishment of or enhancement of capabilities designed for National Defense purposes. An additional but secondary consideration of DOD research is technology dual-use capability to the broader environment or commercial sectors. In today’s budget constrained environment and faced with rapid technology changes, DOD continues to support broad research as a safeguard against technological surprise favoring a strong partnerships with academia and the commercial sector. DOD maintains a dual track for development with accelerated programs designed to address current needs and the longer more traditional path tied to formal acquisition development. This multi-path approach provides researchers a variety of collaboration options with DOD that at times can be confusing.
Section I - Overview
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: For our purposes DOD can be divided into three components: The individual Services; the Joint Staff and Combatant Commands; and the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD). The distribution of responsibilities and relationships within these three components is useful when seeking advocacy and resources for research within the various staffs and agencies of DOD.
First, the individual Services (Army, Air Force, and Navy which includes the Marine Corps) are responsible for organizing, training and equipping the uniformed military to support the full range of military operations for the Combatant Commands. The Services maintain research labs, development centers, and organizations to support the full life-cycle development of technology and capabilities requirement.
Second, the Joint staff referred to as the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is responsible for
consolidating the inputs of the individual Services to support the needs of the Regional Combatant Commands (RCCs), which are Central, Pacific, European, Northern, African and Southern Commands. The RCC needs are validated within the Services and the JCS Joint Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) process through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to establish requirements documents to be used by DOD in decision-
DRAFT
3
making processes. The RCCs are commonly known by their regional designation such as Central Command (CENTCOM) or Pacific Command (PACOM). The RCCs are responsible for military operations in their Area of Operation (AOR) or geographic region, so the RCCs demand signals or needs determine much of the weight of effort for the Services. There are three Functional Combatant Commands: Transportation; Strategic; and Special Operations that support the RCCs. These nine Combatant Commands (CCRs) are supported by the Services to provide the land, air, cyber and sea component of military operations.
Joint urgent operational needs (JUONS) from the CCRs are demand signals or needs which require near-term fielding. Translating technical innovation into the impact on warfighting capabilities is always critical and in the case of a JUON is time sensitive.
Another key reference is “Capability Gaps (CGs) ”. As part of the Joint Staff review
process an assessment is conducted to identify CGs. These gaps are then documented as an additional reference point to decide on development needs and budget prioritization.
RCC needs, called warfighter requirements can mature into Concepts of Operations
(CONOPS) and Concepts of Employment (CONEMPS). CONOPS and CONEMPS can then translate combat capabilities into sets of requirements and the technological capabilities needed for mission accomplishment. Warfighter needs are evaluated in a parallel and iterative processes within the JCS and Individual Services to identify and prioritize technology development against operational urgency and budgetary constraints.
Third, supporting the Secretary of Defense are staffs with the following defined roles:
“The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is the principal staff element of the Secretary of Defense in the exercise of policy development, planning, resource management, fiscal, and program evaluation responsibilities. OSD includes the immediate offices of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, Under Secretaries of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, General Counsel, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, Director of Administration and Management, and such other staff offices as the Secretary establishes to assist in carrying out assigned responsibilities”
The key staff supporting research within OSD is the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistic (AT&L). Within this staff resides the Director of Research and Engineering, (ASDR&E).
DRAFT
4
DOD research processes are iterative and create a contrast between demand and supply from a budgetary and timeline perspective. While advocacy may be gained within one segment of the process such as OSD and JCS, the support process for the research is not complete until the final elements are formalized sponsorship and the resources have been gained. Historically, OSD sets the galvanizing focus for overall DOD research and priorities which are then interpreted and executed by the individual Services. OSD establishes priorities by accessing information from the individual Services, Joint organizations and guidance provided by other branches of Government. Each year the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) and Congress set the national tone for S&T that is then provided to the individual departments. OSD-level programs and initiatives are focused on providing joint, cross-cutting support for R&D to point where capabilities can be adopted within the Services programs of record (POR) for transition and budget sustainment. PORs can take many forms such as weapon system platform, services, or other sustainment capabilities formally recognized by the Services.
DRAFT
5
FUNDING In addition to the organizational framework and decision-making processes of the DOD
there is the overall distribution of research funds. Research funding is defined and cataloged for all budgets with the following the following references:
Relationship between Major Force Program (MFP) 6 R&D Categories and RDT&E Appropriations Budget Activities (BA)
MFP 6 R&D
Category
RDT&E Budget Activity
RDT&E Budget Activity Title
6.1 BA 1 Basic Research
6.2 BA 2 Applied Research
6.3 BA 3 Advanced Technology Development
6.4 BA 4 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes
6.5 BA 5 System Development and Demonstration
6.6 BA 6 RDT&E Management Support
— BA 7 Operational System Development
*NOTE: Although similar, titles of the Major Force Program (MFP) 6 categories (which are not shown above) are not exactly the same as titles of the RDT&E Appropriation Budget Activities. The “Operational System Development” Budget Activity for RDT&E BA 7 is not considered MFP 6. While correctly funded with RDT&E dollars, these efforts do not fall under a MFP 6 Category; rather, for MFP purposes, the efforts are considered part of the Major Force Program that the fielded operational system falls within. Congress calls BA 4, Demonstration and Validation, and calls BA 5, Engineering and Manufacturing Source: DAU.MIL
Budget references used for the ranges of budget application subject to interpretation are: Science and Technology funds (considered Basic and Applied Research or 6.1-6.3), Research and Development (Advanced Components or 6.4) and RDT&E (Test and Evaluation) focused on development efforts moving from research into acquisition or transition processes greater than 6.4. These terms may vary in description and application among the Services.
DRAFT
6
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT As part of the DOD’s terms of reference a series of maturity scales have been developed to describe the stages of technology based on the following description levels. Below is a generic chart, for which additional variations have been developed for software, hardware, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing. See Attachment 1 for expanded description table.
DRAFT
7
‘Notional Alignment with Funding, TRLs, Acquisition Cycle, & MRLs’
Section II -- Current Landscape for Research
This section provides a top down summary of the current program, initiatives emphasized and
priorities among DOD research related organizations.
Each year the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy provide a guidance memorandum to the Federal Government agencies on research activities to prioritize and align within national level themes. Congress conducts testimony on research and development with the various agencies to gain insight and provide feedback. These exchanges codify the direction of research among and between the federal departments. Identifying dual use technology for possible shared resource funding has become an increasingly important criteria for funding. The OSTP memorandum includes OMB's FY 2015 Budget Guidance memorandum M-13-14”. Providing a good overview of what should be expected for emphasis across federal agencies supporting research. Extracted from this document “Agency submissions must meet the requirements…. Specifically, “ Within research portfolios, Federal agencies are encouraged to identify and pursue clearly defined "Grand Challenges" -ambitious goals that require advances in science, technology and innovation to achieve, and to supplement high-risk, high-return research.“ Other elements included in the guidance:
Avoid Duplication of research
Foster interagency partnerships as well as partnerships with academia, small business,
and other industry
Key development areas:
o R&D for informed policy-making and management
o Information Technology o R&D for National-Security Missions
National and Homeland Security and Intelligence mission agencies should invest in science and technology to meet the threats of the future and
DRAFT
8
develop innovative new security capabilities. In order to provide cutting-edge capabilities to meet current and future mission requirements, national security agencies need to support a balanced portfolio of basic and applied research and advanced technology development. In particular, priority should be given to investments to develop capabilities in hypersonics, countering weapons of mass destruction, advanced computing, accelerated training, and handling large data sets for national-security mission requirements.
o Innovation in Biology and Neuroscience
Agencies should give priority to R&D investments that have the potential to foster biological innovations in health, national security, energy, and agriculture, particularly in platform technologies as described in the Administration's 2012 National Bioeconomy Blueprint (e.g. technologies for the design of biological systems, understanding systems biology, and high throughput biology), science and technology to support the goals of the National Strategy for Biosurveillance, and research at the interfaces of biology, physical sciences, and engineering. Agencies should give priority to the President's BRAIN (Basic Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative, and other priorities identified by the NSTC Interagency Working Group on Neuroscience, including the relationship between the brain and behavior, cognition, development, and learning.
o Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
o Innovation and commercialization
OSD: Interpreting the top down guidance of the Executive Branch, OSD is continuing to map
DOD specific S&T Investments against the following key topic areas established in 2012 as
galvanizing S&T roadmaps from which the individual services apply resources and match
against joint resources maintained in OSD level programs/interactivities.
DRAFT
9
S&T Emphasis Area Roadmaps:
•Autonomy •Cyber •Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
•Data-to-Decisions •Engineered Resilient Systems •Electronic Warfare / Electronic
Protection •Human Systems In addition to the Area Roadmaps, OSD has identified 6 priority topics for Basic Research. Identification of these priorities is based on inputs from a variety of sources which includes university inputs. Providing inputs to DOD on these and other topics is a means to shape DOD research and funding emphasis. Many successful programs have evolved or have been created in DOD based on preliminary information coming from publications and university engagements.
DRAFT
10
OSD focuses on two major funding paths: accelerated application for today’s warfighting requirements, mature technology and fostering future capabilities from basic and early applied research. The chart below shows OSD programs alignment to TRL/MRL.
DRAFT
11
The ability to determine the alignment of the research along this TRL and MRL alignment is
useful to navigating the numerous sponsors and funding avenues available. A key nuance of
titles is that “initiatives” are not identified in the budget as a separate line entry. Therefore,
initiatives are subject to significant funding year-by-year priority changes.
DOD has historically kept its basic and applied research funding relatively stable as a means of
protecting future capability development. DOD’s historic continuity supporting basic research
as clearly been linked to the Nation’s Security readiness by being at the forefront of technology
application as illustrated by the charts below:
DRAFT
12
DRAFT
13
This long-view of investment has made DOD the largest and one of the most stable sources for
early stage research within the Federal Government and the single largest funding source for
specific disciplines.
Within OSD there are five major staff groups that support research:
1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) mission is to prevent technological
surprise to the US, while creating technological surprise for our enemies. DARPA focuses on
evolving disruptive and revolutionary capabilities that then can be transitioned to Service
sponsored programs for future adaption. DARPA is the single largest DOD research agency.
Key attributes important to researchers:
Technical Staff rotates every 4-6 years
Most research is conducted in universities and industry, not Gov’t labs
Most funding decisions reside at Office Director and Program Manager Level.
Project funding is usually based on gated or interim reviews and objectives.
Continued funding is not guaranteed for future gates. Matrix teams of Government,
academic, and industry partners are highly encouraged.
DRAFT
14
DARPA has six program offices, all of which report to the DARPA director.
The Adaptive Execution Office (AEO) is one of two new DARPA offices created in 2009 by the previous DARPA Director, Regina Dugan. Its four thrust areas include technology transition, assessment, rapid productivity and adaptive systems.
The Defense Sciences Office (DSO) vigorously pursues the most promising technologies within a broad spectrum of the science and engineering research communities and develops those technologies into important, radically new military capabilities.[15]
The Information Innovation Office (I2O) aims to ensure U.S. technological superiority in all areas where information can provide a decisive military advantage.
The Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) mission focuses on the heterogeneous microchip-scale integration of electronics, photonics, and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). Their high risk/high payoff technology is aimed at solving the national level problems of protection from biological, chemical and information attack and to provide operational dominance for mobile distributed command and control, combined manned/unmanned warfare, and dynamic, adaptive military planning and execution.
The Strategic Technology Office (STO) mission is to focus on technologies that have a global theater-wide impact and that involve multiple Services.[16]
The Tactical Technology Office (TTO) engages in high-risk, high-payoff advanced military research, emphasizing the "system" and "subsystem" approach to the development of aeronautic, space, and land systems as well as embedded processors and control systems. This research includes an effort within the TTO to develop a small satellite launch vehicle.[17]
2. DOD Research: Within this directorate portfolio resides most of the oversight for Basic
research, oversight and coordination with the Service labs, Defense Microelectronics
Activity and tracking of S&T Initiatives.
3. Systems Engineering: Develop and grow the Systems Engineering capability of the
Department of Defense—through engineering policy, continuous engagement with
Component Systems Engineering organizations, and substantive technical engagement
throughout the acquisition life cycle with major and selected acquisition programs.
4. Rapid Fielding Director: Mission is to identify, develop, demonstrate, assess and rapidly
field innovative concepts and technologies that supply critical capabilities to meet time-
sensitive operational needs.
DRAFT
15
5. Test And Evaluation: DOT&E is responsible for issuing DoD policy and procedures;
reviewing and analyzing the results of OT&E conducted for each major DoD acquisition
program; providing independent assessments to SecDef, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), and Congress.
Section III--FINDING RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND OPPORTUNTIES
Many of the OSD and the Services research organizations support individual and team projects.
Some programs are unique to a specific Service or OSD while other may be supported by one or
more Services and agencies by design.
Research proposals or calls for technology are announced through several means. The most
common is the Broad Area Announcements or announcement on Federal Business
Opportunities website “FEDBIZ”. Other sources that are posted or announced through formal
network channels or association events are:
Broad Area Announcements: Most DOD research organizations post BAAs for proposal submission. FY14 BAAs (with respective amendments, as applicable) are projected for release by 31 May 2013. There is NO in-cycle timeline for FY14 funding consideration. Offerors MUST communicate with the respective technical point of contact regarding topics, technology level of interest and potential funding availability BEFORE submitting an out-of-cycle white paper
Request for Information (RFI) that serve as prep contract information calls for possible contracted research
An important factor to consider is the duration and ultimate objectives
of the proposed research.
** If the research is focused on basic research very early stages
of development then many of the sponsors would be focused in the
Service labs.
** If the part of the purpose of the research is to grow and sustain
the research capability and expertise, then advocacy and sponsorship
should include reaching out to both the DOD research community of
practice as well as the acquisition and requirements leaders to promote
their understanding on the impact and value of the research for their
end need
DRAFT
16
Request for Proposal (RFP) is the formalized proposal announcement for a contract action.
Many of the research funded programs encourage partnerships between small and larger
industry as well as with academia. Form teams with unique capabilities that may serve as a risk
mitigation factor for sponsors such as DARPA. It is an opportunity to partner with large industry
in which they may serve as a “subcontractor” with the Academic or Small business partner as
the Primary contractor. Worth noting, recent trends in sponsored research have been to have
a large industry partner or pre-identified for sponsors to address transition or scaling
opportunities as projects are completed and are ready to transition to production processes.
Converse to the traditional publicly announced or posted notices soliciting research submissions, there is also less conventional means for creating research opportunities. Unannounced opportunities could generally be considered those that are generated out of engagements with DOD from which an “announcement is shaped”. In many instances DOD decides to formalize or announce a research opportunities that is generated from early discussions with researchers and subject matter experts that shape and then formalize a research opportunity using the accepted partnership mechanisms and programs available within DOD. Having on-going dialog with key DOD research organizations helps university research be on the front end of evolving opportunities and insight. Even with early dialog with DOD officials, most research must go through an announcement process to ensure equitable access by industry and other research institutions, but there are a number of partnership mechanisms that have allowance for keying information confidential up to five years under the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA). A list of the partnership mechanisms is in the attachment section of this document.
Small Business Venues
The DoD Small Business Innovative Research ( SBIR) program is made up of 13 participating Components: Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile Defense Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Joint Science and Technology Office for Chemical and Biological Defense, US Special Operations Command, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Microelectronics Activity, the Office of Secretary of Defense, and the Defense Health Program.
The three-phase (SBIR) Program funds up to $1.15 million for early-stage R&D in small companies. Eligible projects must fulfill an R&D need identified by the DoD and have the potential to be developed into a product or service for commercial or defense markets.
Three-Phased Program
DRAFT
17
1. Phase I (project feasibility) determines the scientific, technical and commercial merit and feasibility of the ideas submitted. Phase I contracts are typically $150,000 over a period of six months.
2. Phase II (project development to prototype) is the major R&D effort, funding the prototyping and demonstration of the most promising Phase I projects. Phase II contracts are up to $1 million and usually span 24 months.
3. Phase III (commercialization) is the ultimate goal of the SBIR program. Small businesses are expected to obtain funding from the private sector or government sources outside the SBIR program to commercialize the Phase II project for sale in the military and private sector markets.
Three-Phased Program
SBIR STTR
Phase I: Project feasibility 6 months, up to $150,000 12 months, up to $150,000 Phase II: Project development to prototype
2 years, up to $1,000,000 2 years, up to $1,000,000
Phase III: Commercialization Commercialization of the technology in military and/or private sector markets with non-SBIR/non-STTR funds
*Phase I and Phase II awards are posted at www.dodsbir.net/selections/ generally six months after selection. The DoD issues three SBIR and two STTR solicitations per year describing R&D needs and inviting R&D proposals from small businesses. Click here to see the schedule. Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Congress established the STTR program in 1992, similar in structure to SBIR, STTR provides up to $850,000 in early-stage R&D funding to small companies working cooperatively with researchers at universities and other research institutions. The DoD STTR program is a three-phased program. Funded at over $100 million annually, STTR is made up of six participating components: Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile Defense Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of Secretary of Defense. Objectives The SBIR and STTR programs are designed to:
Stimulate technological innovation Increase private sector commercialization of federal R&D Increase small business participation in federally funded R&D Foster participation by minority and disadvantaged firms in technological innovation
For further information regarding program eligibility, limitations, and definitions, review the SBIR or STTR solicitations.
University Focused research venues:
DRAFT
18
University Centers of Excellence (UCOE) is sponsored through the Air Force Research
Lab Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The Air Force maintains a variety of topic
focused COE based at various universities.
University Applied Research Centers (UARC) are Army/Navy programs. UARCs are non-
profit research organizations within a university or college that are established to
provide or maintain essential engineering, research, and/or development capabilities
through a long-term, strategic relationship with DoD. Each UARC has areas of expertise
that are identified as core competencies that it must provide in support of its mission to
support DoD. UARCs operate in a trusted status with DOD agencies and may not
compete for Government contracts. UARCs are defined in the DoD UARC Management
Plan as college and university research organizations that receive sole source funds, on
average, exceeding $6 million annually.
University Research Initiative (URI) Programs
The URI programs are executed under the policy guidance of the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Research, to enhance universities' capabilities
DRAFT
19
to perform basic science and engineering research and related education in science and
engineering areas critical to national defense.
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP) DURIP funds will be
used for the acquisition of major equipment to augment current or develop new
research capabilities in support of DoD-relevant research. Proposals may request
$50,000 to $1,000,000. Proposals for purely instructional equipment are not eligible.
General-purpose computing facilities are not appropriate for DURIP funding, but
requests for computers for DoD-relevant research programs are appropriate.
Multidisciplinary Research Program of the University Research Initiatives (MURI) –
Navy and Army funded. MURI efforts involve teams of researchers investigating high
priority topics and opportunities that intersect more than one traditional technical
discipline. For many military problems this multidisciplinary approach serves to
stimulate innovations, accelerate research progress and expedite transition of results
into naval applications with commercial potential.
Young Investigator Program- Service, DARPA and DTRA funded. The program's
objectives are to attract outstanding faculty members of Institutions of Higher
Education (hereafter called "universities"). Proposals may request up to $170,000 per
year for three years.
Presidential Early Career Award in Science & Engineering (PECASE) Focuses on
scientists and engineers who, while early in their research careers. Eligibility: an
individual must be a U.S. citizen, national, or permanent resident with no more than five
years from receipt of the doctorate degree. Each award will be $200K per year for five
years.
Navy Research Programs:
Innovative Naval Prototypes: INPs explore high 6.2 and 6.3 technologies that can dramatically
change the way naval forces fight. Programs in this category may be disruptive technologies
which, for reasons of high risk or radical departure from established requirements and concepts
of operation, are unlikely to survive without top leadership endorsement, and, unlike Future
Naval Capabilities, are initially too high risk for a firm transition commitment from the
acquisition community. INPs should be identified based on a balanced combination of naval
need and technology exploitation. Investments should be planned with the critical mass needed
to achieve a level of technology maturity suitable for transition in four to eight years. Current
INPs:
o Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System (AACUS):
DRAFT
20
o Electromagnetic Railgun (EMRG): o Free Electron Laser (FEL): o Integrated Topside (InTop):
SwampWorks program explores innovative, high-risk and disruptive technologies and concepts. Due to the portfolio's high-risk nature, SwampWorks leverages short exploratory studies to examine the maturation of a proposed technology before making substantial investments. Efforts are smaller in scope than INP are intended to produce results in less than three years. SwampWorks programs routinely have strong advocacy outside of the ONR from the acquisition community or the fleet.
Air Force Educational Programs: The Scientific and Technology Departments of AFOSR, Business Integration Department (RP), the International Office (IO), and three overseas detachments, AOARD and EOARD and SOARD, are responsible for the management of several programs that improve science and engineering education in the U.S., and stimulate interactions between Air Force researchers and the broader international, as well as domestic, research community. Applications for these programs do not always require proposals but generally have specific deadlines, formats, and qualifications. Researchers applying for these programs should communicate with the point-of-contact (POC) listed in each program description.
Air Force Visiting Scientist Program Awards to Stimulate and Support Undergraduate Research Experiences (ASSURE) Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program (ESEP) National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Program USAF National Research Council Resident Research Associateship (NRC/RRA) Program USAF-Summer Faculty Fellowship Program (SFFP) Window on Science (WOS) Program Windows on the World (WOW) Program
Individual research avenues:
Participation in DOD Studies and Committees- these are based on recommendation or
selection processes.
Networking with the Navy: The Directorate of Innovation hosts this program. Forums are sponsored to identify people and projects for the Navy and Marine Corps Register to get IN now
Army Research Lab (ARL) has two ARL-wide post-doctoral research programs: one
administered by the National Research Council (NRC) and the other by the Oak Ridge
DRAFT
21
Associated Universities (ORAU). Both programs are open to scientists and engineers
with U.S. citizenship. Stipends for research associates range from $68K to $74K.
Within DOD there are Service or Agency specific research organizations and programs. Below is
a short description of some of that organization. There are some research activities that are
specifically mandated by Congress to promote research development in high priority with
strategic impact.
DOD Service Labs primarily manage the basic and applied research of their Service.
Other DOD related Initiatives or Funds
NRO Director’s Innovation Initiative- Managed by the Advanced Systems and Technologies
Directorate, the National Reconnaissance Office's Director's Innovation Initiative (DII) program
is designed to identify technical and scientific solutions to problems challenging the NRO in the
21st century. The DII program is designed to provide initial feasibility funding to a wide range of
ideas, with the goal of transitioning the most promising ideas to other NRO offices for further
development and potential acquisition. Both Government and non-Government organizations
may participate in the DII program
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs:
CDMRP is funded through the Department of Defense (DoD), via annual Congressional
legislation known as the Defense Appropriations Act. CDMRP are funded an annual. The goal of
the DMRDP is to advance the state of medical science in those areas of most pressing need and
relevance to today’s battlefield experience. The objectives of the DMRDP are to discover and
explore innovative approaches to protect, support, and advance the health and welfare of
military personnel, families, and communities; to accelerate the transition of medical
technologies into deployed products; and to accelerate the translation of advances in
knowledge into new standards of care for injury prevention, treatment of casualties,
rehabilitation, and training systems that can be applied in theater, in the clinical facilities of the
Military Health System, or in civilian health care facilities.
FY14 MID-CTA Focus Areas
All applications MUST contain only one clinical trial/testing with a distinct study design
and address at least one of the Focus Areas listed below. Applications focused on areas
other than those listed below should NOT be submitted.
DRAFT
22
• Therapeutics. Evaluation of optimum preventative or directive therapies for combat-
related or trauma-induced wound infections using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved drugs, biologics, or devices either alone or in combination. Studies focusing on
either new indications of FDA approved drugs/ biologics/devices, or investigational new
drugs/biologics/devices will be accepted.
• Rapid detection of pathogens and/or microbial drug resistance markers. Evaluation of
a functional prototype device or assay for the rapid detection of pathogens and/or
microbial drug resistance markers in combat-related or trauma-induced wounds.
Research outcomes and documentation should support the development of an FDA-
regulated device or assay.
• Rapid detection of biomarkers. Evaluation of a functional prototype device or assay for
the rapid detection of novel and specific in vivo or in vitro biomarkers (from wound,
serum, saliva, or urine) that predict development of infection or discriminate
OSD to Service sources:
Joint Concept and Technology Demonstrations (JCTD) exploits mature and maturing
technologies and introduces new operational concepts to solve important military
problems. A JCTD further facilitates transition of these new capabilities from developers
to warfighter users. JCTD require a minimum of one service and one Joint command
sponsor. Generally 1-2 years in duration, under $2M, based on mature technology
ready for immediate application.
Rapid Innovation Fund- provides a collaborative vehicle for small businesses to provide
the department with innovative technologies that can be rapidly inserted into
acquisition programs that meet specific defense need
CTO Programs
Defense Acquisition Challenge (PDF)
Solicits ‘challenges’ to existing technologies to provide companies, individuals, and
Defense acquisition programs an on-ramp for increased introduction of innovative and
cost-saving technologies.
Foreign Comparative Testing (PDF)
Facilitates the test and evaluation of foreign non-developmental equipment and
technology to satisfy U.S. military requirements.
Other Reference links:
DRAFT
23
Federal Laboratory Consortium - A nation-wide network of federal laboratories that provides
the forum to develop strategies and opportunities for linking laboratory mission technologies
and expertise with the marketplace.
Defense Innovation Market Place (DIM) This website is a portal to multiple DOD and other
agency S&T links. Most of the publically available reference for DOD research can be found on
this site.
DRAFT
24
Attachment I
Technology Readiness Levels in the Department of Defense (DoD) [1]
Technology Readiness Level
Description Supporting Information
1. Basic principles observed and reported
Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development (R&D). Examples might include paper studies of a technology’s basic properties.
Published research that identifies the principles that underlie this technology. References to who, where, when.
2. Technology concept and/or application formulated
Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative, and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies.
Publications or other references that out-line the application being considered and that provide analysis to support the concept.
3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept
Active R&D is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative.
Results of laboratory tests performed to measure parameters of interest and comparison to analytical predictions for critical subsystems. References to who, where, and when these tests and comparisons were performed.
4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment
Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively “low fidelity” compared with the eventual system. Examples include integration of “ad hoc” hardware in the laboratory.
System concepts that have been considered and results from testing laboratory-scale breadboard(s). References to who did this work and when. Provide an estimate of how breadboard hardware and test results differ from the expected system goals.
5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment
Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so they can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include “high-fidelity” laboratory integration of components.
Results from testing laboratory breadboard system are integrated with other supporting elements in a simulated operational environment. How does the “relevant environment” differ from the expected operational environment? How do the test results compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? Was the breadboard system refined to more nearly match the expected system goals?
DRAFT
25
6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in a simulated operational environment.
Results from laboratory testing of a prototype system that is near the desired con-figuration in terms of performance, weight, and volume. How did the test environment differ from the operational environment? Who performed the tests? How did the test compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before moving to the next level?
7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6 by requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment (e.g., in an air-craft, in a vehicle, or in space).
Results from testing a prototype system in an operational environment. Who performed the tests? How did the test compare with expectations? What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before moving to the next level?
8. Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration.
Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications.
Results of testing the system in its final configuration under the expected range of environmental conditions in which it will be expected to operate. Assessment of whether it will meet its operational requirements. What problems, if any, were encountered? What are/were the plans, options, or actions to resolve problems before finalizing the design?
9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations.
Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.
OT&E reports.
Related DoD definitions[edit source | editbeta]
The DoD uses similar definitions for the following specialized areas:
Software Technology Readiness Levels[2] Biomedical Technology Readiness Levels Manufacturing Readiness Level
DRAFT
26
Attachment 2—Partnership Mechanism Table
Type of Agreement
Agreement or Mechanism
Primary purpose Approx Length
Collab. in research
Personnel exchange
Lab facilities access
$$ from Gov.
Research Partnership Agreements CRADA
Contract for collaborative research; often used when there is the expectation of producing a commercial
technology
Medium to long term
Yes Yes Yes No
Non-Traditional CRADA
CRADA tailored for specialized purposes e.g. clinical trial partnerships, materials transfer
Medium to long term
Yes Yes Yes No
Cooperative Agreement
Used for collaborative research projects that are exploratory in nature. Must be competed.
Medium to long term
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Collaborative Research/ Technology Alliance
A special form of a CA that emphasizes multi-disciplinary collaboration and often combines gov.,
industry, and university partners. Must be competed.
Medium to long term
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Resource Use Agreements
Commercial Test Agreement
Allows partners to test materials, equipment, models, or software using gov. lab equipment
Short term
No No Yes No
Test Service Agreements
Allows partners to purchase testing services for materials, equipment, models, or software from gov.
labs
Short term
No No Yes No
User Facilities Agreement
Enables partners to conduct research experiments on unique gov. lab equipment and facilities
Short term
No No Yes No
Personnel Exchange Agreements
Inter-governmental Personnel Act
Used for exchanges of federal lab and university personnel
Short term
No Yes No No
Joint Appointments
Allows university or federal laboratory personnel to be employed at multiple institutions
Medium to long term
No Yes No No
Educational Agreements
Educational Partnership Agreements
Used to allow gov. labs and universities to work together to develop educational programs that
further both partners’ missions
Medium term
Varies Varies Varies Varies
Fellowship, Internship, and Sabbatical Leave Programs
A variety of mechanisms available for both student and research professors, including summer internships and fellowships and faculty leave
programs. Vary by service
Short term
Varies Yes Varies Varies
Other Partnership Agreements
University Affiliated Research Center
Long-term partnerships that creates a university led research center to meet DoD needs. Must be
competed; cannot be solicited.
Long term
Yes Yes No Yes
Centers of Excellence
An Air Force mechanism that is similar to that of the UARC. Must be competed; cannot be solicited.
Long term
Yes Yes No Yes
Other Transaction Authority
Used for a partnership that does not fit the above agreement mechanisms. Special conditions apply.
Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies
(Source: Draft of DOD Lab-University Guidebook (draft dated 8-23-2013)
DRAFT
27
Attachment 3: Examples of DOD research questions and focus
While research proposals vary greatly among the DOD organizations, there are fundamental
questions that are consistently asked in considering research funding.
1. What will the research do for the warfighter or DOD? And does it have dual-use
capability?
2. How long it will take for that research? What are interim deliverables?
3. How much funding is needed? And do you have other funding resources or
partners?
The QUAD Chart and Proposal template below emphases rapid research and development and
highlight these consistent themes among all DOD research projects.
DRAFT
28
Project Title
Project Description: A brief statement of the specific product / technology being proposed and how the technology or product will work. These should be in clear, concise, layman / newspaper style statements. Objective & Payoff: What is the objective of this project? Where is the payoff? What current problem does this project address? This should be short and to the point. How will this project solve the above problem? Benefit to the Warfighter: How does this project benefit the Warfighter? What is the capability, result, and difference offered by this technology to an operator? What will the warfighter do better with this? Funding / Cost: **NOTE-- Obligating documents (MIPR acceptances and/or contract mods) must be sent to RRTO**
What is the total cost of the proposed program? (Note this funding is for one fiscal year). Annotate exactly who is receiving the funding and whether funding should be sent as Direct Site or Reimbursable.
As a subset of overall funding, indicate amounts leveraged from other programs / projects or Service / Agency investments
Include descriptions of any sub-allocation of funds (e.g. A portion of RRTO provided funding sub-allocated to a lab or industry)
Program Plan:
Period of Performance: Specific dates
Schedule: Show major activities / efforts planned for the technology/product development with milestones. Include both S&T and acquisition tasks / elements. What is the Period of Performance? When can the first items be delivered and what is the schedule for total delivery? (Fielding is strongly desired in 12-24 months).
Spend Plan: Include a brief “spend plan” broadly defining the anticipated time line for major project expenditures. See attached excel spreadsheet template.
Deliverables: What will be delivered over the life of this project? Include hardware and software prototypes for field use or acquisition certification. For internal reporting
DRAFT
29
purposes, DDR&E/RRTO will require monthly updates and a final report providing technical and financial status.
Please include the following verbiage:
1. Monthly reports to be made via the EPTS online tracking tool. 2. Final report to be delivered to RRTO upon 100% fund expenditure.
Metrics / Measures of Success: Discuss what measurement criteria will be established to measure progress against stated goals (e.g., interoperability against an industry standard, opportunity for unit, system, or life cycle savings).
Risk: Anticipated risks and brief risk handling plan. Potential Transition Plans to Services: How will this program/technology transition to the services? Participants & Customers: Include name, email, phone number, and complete address of key stakeholders / focal points, including:
a. Primary and Alternate POC for monthly reporting. (Reports must be made to RRTO monthly using the EPTS online system. EPTS accounts will be created for these POCs.)
b. Technical rep who will manage this effort. c. Financial rep that will receive the MIPR and / or provide follow-on status of obligations /
expenditures). d. Combatant Command/User Sponsor e. Lead Service/Agency f. Program / product manager who will fund for procurement and / or logistics support. g. Key contractors / providers of the technology or product.
LIMIT TOTAL INPUT - NOT MORE THAN THREE PAGES
DRAFT
30
Attachment 4—Resource Links: (source in part from Defense Innovation Marketplace) Department of Defense's Basic Research Office
OSD Thrust Areas Emerging Scientific Research Areas (Overview)
o Synthetic Biology o Quantum Information Science o Cognitive Neuroscience o Understanding Human and Social Behavior o Novel Engineered Materials o Nanoscience
Basic Research Opportunities DoD Strategic Coordination supports
$2.1B in Research Grants.gov for programs under which grants or cooperative agreements may be
awarded Fedbizopps.gov for programs under which procurement contracts may be awarded
MURI Review These are a subset at the 2013 FY2011 MURI Program Review (held July 2013 in Arlington, VA)
Conductive DNA Systems and Molecular Devices Environmental stress and human migration in a low-lying developing nation: A
comparison of co-evolving natural and human landscapes in the physically and culturally diverse context of Bangladesh
Tailoring of Atomic-scale Interphase Complexions for Mechanism-Informed Materials Designs
Value-centered Information Theory for Adaptive Learning, Inference, Tracking and Exploitation
Quantum Memories in Photon-Atomic Solid State Systems Control of Quantum Systems: Theory and Experiments Mountain Terrain Atmospheric Modeling and Observations (MATERHORN) Program Nanofabrication of Tunable 3D Nanotube Architectures Scalable, Stochastic and Spatiotemporal Game Theory for Real-World Human
Adversarial Behavior Other Programs/Links of Interest Offices that Execute Programs Army
Army Research Office Army Medical Research and Materiel Command The Army Corps of Engineers The Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Navy
DRAFT
31
Office of Naval Research Air Force
Air Force Office of Scientific Research Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E))
2013 OSD Basic Research Overview Other Agencies
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Threat Reduction Agency
OSD Programs Minerva Initiative: University-based social science research initiative Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI)
o In FY 2014,OSD is migrating the Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and Minority Institution (HBCU/MI) program back to an OSD budget line, and
re-categorizing the investment as basic research. Joint Programs
2013 OSD Basic Research Overview **NEW** DoD's FY13 Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative Awards Announced Multi-Disciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURI) Program **UPDATED**
(July/August) * MURI Partners List
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP) o Primarily in-house focused program conducted by various organizations
More Resources Federal Business Opportunities All Industry Resources 2012 Big Data Solicitations Current S&T Emphasis Area Solicitations Army Resources Navy Resources Air Force Resources USMC Resources Rapid Innovation Fund Other DoD Resources
DRAFT
32
Doing Business with DoD Development & Demo of Low Observable Technologies **NEW** In-Process Monitoring for Additive Manufacturing **NEW** Autonomy & Collaborative Ops for Unmanned Systems **NEW** Gov't/Univ. Coop in support of Basic and Applied Research and Educational Programs
All Resources by Organization Army Navy Air Force USMC Combatant Commands (CCMDs) Other DoD Agencies/DoD Offices DoD Basic Research DoD Laboratories Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and University Affiliated Research
Centers Rapid Innovation Fund
2011-2013 Rapid Innovation Fund Information Small Business Resources
DoD Small Business Links Small Business
Administration Clusters Tech Transition
CTTSO Technology Transition Doing Business with CTTSO
Requests For Information/Proposals (RFIs/RFPs) Army
Autonomous Mine Detection System Presolicitation (Closes 11/30/2013)
Rifleman Radio Draft RFP D3I Domain 3 Synopsis
(Closes 7/31/2015) IMILES Tactical Vehicle System
(Closes Late September 2013) Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) Draft RFP Website
Navy Gov't/Univ. Coop in support of Basic and Applied Research and Educational Programs
**NEW** (Closes 9/5/2014)
Naval Warfare and Weapons BAA (Closes 7/24/2014)
NRL-Wide BAA (Closes 7/7/2014)
DRAFT
33
Next Generation Jammer Increment II Subsytem (Closes 10/30/2013)
Spectral and Reconnaissance Imagery for Tactical Exploitation Presolicitation (Closes 10/14/2013)
Exchange of Informaiton at the Tactical Edge (Closes 10/9/2013)
Gas Turbine Upgrades for Reduced Total Ownership Cost & Improved Ship Impact RFI (11/15/2013)
Submarine and Surface Combat System Signal Processing (March 21, 2014 )
Air Force Development & Demo of Low Observable Technologies **NEW**
(Closes 11/27/13) In-Process Monitoring for Additive Manufacturing **NEW**
(Closes 11/4/13) Solid Rocket Motor Modernization Studies BAA
(Closes 10/18/13) Air Force Rapid Innovation Fund Solicitation Posting (white paper submission closes
10/8/13) AF Life Cycle Management Center, BAA Air Force Nature-Inspired Sciences BAA
(Closes 10/15/2013) Air Force Optimized Integrated Multidisciplinary Systems (OPTIMUS)
(Closes 9/25/2013) (SMORS) Procurement
Other DoD Autonomy & Collaborative Ops for Unmanned Systems **NEW**
(Closes 10/7/13) Defense Prisoners of War/Missing Person Office Technical Meeting
(Closes 9/24/13) DoD Hazardous Chemical Needs
(Closes 9/23/13) R&D of a Cortical Processor RFI
(Closes 9/25/13) OSD/Defense Agency BAA Solicitation
(Closes 9/23/2014) DARPA Information Innovation Office BAA
(Closes 6/26/2014) RIF 2013 Pre-solicitation notice
DoD Licensable Patents Browse DoD patents that labs create patents that can be licensed for commercial products and manufacturing processes. Special Initiatives
DRAFT
34
Joint Service Human Systems IR&D Events Interagency Working Group - Complex Engineering
DoD Research and Technology Funding Opportunities Federal Business Opportunities DoD Research and
Technology Opportunities Army
Army Networking the Soldier: Information for Industry
Army Technology Opportunities Army Engineer Research and Development Center Army Research Laboratory/Army Research Office
Navy Navy Technology Opportunities Naval Research Laboratory Contracting Division Office of Naval Research
Air Force Air Force Technology Opportunities Air Force Office of Scientific Research Air Force Research Laboratory Long Range Acquisition Estimate (LRAE)
Other DoD Agencies Coalition Warfare Program (CWP) CTTSO BAA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Threat Reduction Agency Information Analysis Centers Missile Defense Agency Joint Non-Lethal
Weapons Program Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical & Biological Defense
DoD Awarded Contracts Awarded Defense Contracts
