Integrated Micro Primary Atomic Clock Technology (IMPACT) | Apply Online

IMPACT (Integrated Micro Primary Atomic Clock Technology) - FAQs

What is the IMPACT opportunity?

IMPACT (Integrated Micro Primary Atomic Clock Technology) is a DARPA Microsystems Technology Office Broad Agency Announcement (BAA 08-32) effort focused on developing an integrated "micro" primary atomic clock. The goal is primary-clock-level performance in a drastically smaller, lighter, and lower-power (SWAP-reduced) form factor than traditional primary atomic standards.

What is DARPA trying to achieve with IMPACT?

DARPA is aiming for a revolutionary advance in atomic clock technology: a micro-scale, integrated primary atomic clock that preserves primary-standard performance while delivering major reductions in size, weight, and power compared to conventional primary clocks.

What kind of ideas is DARPA looking for?

DARPA is explicitly seeking high-risk, high-payoff concepts that could create revolutionary improvements in the underlying science, devices, or system architectures for atomic clocks. The notice draws a clear line against proposals that mainly provide incremental or evolutionary improvements to existing approaches.

What changed in this amendment?

The amendment primarily changes how proposals must be structured and presented. DARPA deleted the original Section III (Detailed Proposal Information) and replaced it with revised instructions. If there is any conflict, the conformed BAA dated 28 July 2008 controls.

What is the proposal due date under the amendment?

Proposals are due by 12:00 PM local time (noon) on August 13, 2008. The amendment extended the due date from the previously stated August 6, 2008.

Were there other key solicitation dates mentioned?

Yes. The notice references an Industry Day held May 15, 2008 and proposal abstracts due June 5, 2008, along with the amended full proposal due date of August 13, 2008 at noon local time.

What is the most important theme of the revised proposal instructions?

The revision emphasizes disciplined program planning with measurable proof of performance: clear tasks and phases, quantitative milestones, explicit test methods to verify performance, and a realistic risk mitigation plan.

What is required in the Statement of Work (SOW)?

The SOW must be written in plain English and must break the effort into technical tasks and subtasks. It must include durations and dependencies, define all deliverables to be provided to the government, and be organized so that each program phase is separately defined.

What details must be included for each SOW task?

For every task, the SOW must include: (1) the objective, (2) a detailed approach, (3) who is responsible (prime or specific team member/subcontractor), and (4) explicit exit criteria tied to a product, event, or milestone that clearly defines completion.

Can proprietary information be included in the SOW?

No. The SOW must not contain proprietary information.

What deliverables should be defined in the SOW?

The SOW should define all deliverables provided to the government, including reports, data, software, and other outputs.

What is required regarding expected results and products?

Proposers must describe expected results and products, including what transferable technology will come out of the work and a credible technology transition path. The notice also reminds proposers to consider the BAA's intellectual property guidance when describing transition and deliverables.

What should be included in the technical rationale and approach section?

This section must explain key scientific and engineering challenges, what is unique about the proposed approach, and what technical solutions are anticipated. It is expected to demonstrate understanding of the state of the art and provide enough technical detail for reviewers to judge feasibility, rather than using marketing language.

What is required in the program plan and risk assessment?

The program plan and risk assessment must include explicit timelines, milestone achievements, and quantitative metrics that will be used to evaluate progress toward program goals. It must identify major technical risks, estimate risk magnitude, and provide concrete mitigation plans.

Are milestones required to be quantitative?

Yes. Milestones must be quantitative and demonstrable. They must be summarized in a single table, and the proposal should explain how each program metric (including those referenced as "Table 1 program metrics") will be met or exceeded, with justification for feasibility.

Is a test plan required? What should it include?

Yes. Proposers must include a specific and detailed test plan describing exactly how milestone performance will be measured. The test plan should clearly connect measurement methods to the quantitative milestones and metrics used to judge progress.

Can proprietary information be included in the milestones table or milestones section?

No. Like the SOW, milestones must not include proprietary information.

How should teaming agreements be handled if the effort depends on them?

If the effort depends on formal teaming agreements, those agreements should be included in the cost volume rather than the technical volume.

Does DARPA expect proposals to compare against other research?

Yes. The revised instructions require proposers to compare their work to other ongoing research and to identify advantages and disadvantages relative to that broader landscape.

What evidence of team capability does DARPA want to see?

DARPA asks for evidence the team can execute the work, including a discussion of previous accomplishments in closely related areas, along with a description of the facilities that will be used.

What is MEMS Exchange and how does it relate to IMPACT?

MEMS Exchange is a DARPA-supported distributed foundry service intended to enable micro- and nano-fabrication. DARPA highlights it as a potential resource, especially for teams without in-house microfabrication capabilities.

Is use of MEMS Exchange required?

The notice strongly encourages proposers to explain how they would use MEMS Exchange in both the work plan and cost plan. If a team does not plan to use it, they are expected to justify why other facilities are more appropriate.

What cost information is required?

The amendment reiterates the need for cost schedules tied to technical and/or payable milestones, with task-by-task and year-by-year cost estimates. Costs should be broken out by the prime and major subcontractors, with totals and any cost share identified.

Is there a cost sharing or matching requirement?

No. The opportunity states there is no cost sharing or matching requirement.

How should milestones support DARPA program decisions?

The milestone structure is intended to support program decision points. Measurable critical milestones should occur at the end of every phase to enable a go/no-go decision for the next phase, and additional interim management milestones are encouraged.

Can proposers propose separately fundable options?

Yes. If the work can be sensibly partitioned into separately fundable options, proposers should identify those options and provide separate cost estimates for them.

Who is eligible to apply?

The notice describes the opportunity as unrestricted eligibility, meaning it is open to all entity types unless otherwise clarified in the full solicitation text.

What award instruments might DARPA use?

The notice lists multiple possible award instruments, including cooperative agreements, grants, and other transactions/procurement contracts.

What is the CFDA number for this opportunity?

The funding opportunity is listed under CFDA 12.910 (Research and Technology Development).

Were award amounts (floor or ceiling) published?

The notice lists the award floor and ceiling as 0, which typically indicates DARPA did not publish specific award size bounds in the announcement and that funding levels would be determined based on proposed scope, merit, and program needs.

What are the posting, creation, and archive dates listed?

The posting date is April 21, 2008. The creation date is July 28, 2008, reflecting the conformed BAA date referenced in the amendment. The archive date is August 20, 2008.

What does DARPA seem to value most in a competitive submission?

Based on the revised instructions, DARPA places strong emphasis on an execution-ready R and D plan: clearly phased tasks, quantitative milestones tied to explicit test methods, candid risk identification with mitigation actions, a realistic technology transition path, and a credible fabrication/facilities plan (potentially leveraging MEMS Exchange) aligned to building a truly integrated micro primary atomic clock rather than a marginally improved conventional design.