ICM2_Q As.pdf

Amendment No. 01 to BAA-12-09-PKM

BAA Title: Integrated Computational Methods for Composite Materials (ICM2)

Questions and Answers

April 23, 2012

Question #1: I had a question on the subject BAA regarding the Clause III.4.a which states: "Foreign

Participation: No". Does this preclude us from subcontracting with a company in Canada?

Answer: You can subcontract with a Canadian subcontractor as long as they are registered and certified with the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC), Battle Creek, MI. Your proposal must include a copy of their approved DD Form 2345, Military Critical Technical Data Agreement. See paragraph III.4.b of the

BAA for further details. Additional information on the United States/Canada Joint Certification Program is available at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/JCP/. If, on the other hand, the Canadian subcontractor is not registered with DLSC, they could still participate as a subcontractor but they could only be given access to public domain information; they could not receive any export-controlled information.

Question #2: The BAA states that this is an unrestricted acquisition. Does this mean that a US

Government agency can propose?

Answer: No, the term "unrestricted" means that the acquisition is not being set aside for small business and that large businesses may submit proposals.

Question #3: Would you be willing to confirm whether there is an incumbent contractor for

BAA1209PKM: ICM2? If there is one, are the name, contract number, award date, expiration date, and ceiling value available for release?

Answer: This confirms that we do not have an incumbent contractor in association with ICM2, which is a brand new program.

Question #4: Could you please explain what you mean by foreign participation: No. Does this mean that foreign corporations are not eligible for an award under this BAA? Or does it mean that we cannot award subcontracts to foreign corporations?

Answer: In response to your question associated with foreign participation in the subject BAA, foreign contractors are not eligible for an award at the prime level under the auspices of this BAA. Going further, foreign participation will only be considered for this BAA at the subcontracting level. Any subcontracting arrangements will be subject to the policy of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation

(ITAR). See question #1 above.

Question #5: Will the DD Form 2345 be counted as one of the 25 pages of the proposal?

Answer: No, the DD Form 2345 does not count against the 25 page limit for the technical proposal.

Question #6: Is there a difference between ICME and ICMSE?

A: For this Foundational Engineering Problem (FEP), both terms are used interchangeably.

Question #7: Do the Metals FEP and Composites FEP have similar program objectives and goals?

A: Both areas involve similar objectives to provide approaches for integrating tools and databases across structural materials.

Question #8: Will the attendance list for this meeting be posted?

A: Yes.

Question #9: What is an FEP?

A: FEP is a demonstration of the ICME process for a given material and given component (reference the

National Research Council (NRC) report on ICME).

Question #10: Does the government have in mind a particular core work area or a starting point in the material life timeline that the offeror should propose? Where does the offeror start?

A: The starting point depends on the maturity of the material and the application. Offerors should not work the entire material life timeline. The offeror should be clear in the proposal in terms of what to work and focus on.

Question #11: What are the success metrics for the program?

A: The government has not quantified metrics at this time, but will consider the key feature articles to judge progress and success.

Question #12: What is the format/structure for the cost proposal?

A: There is no page limit for the cost proposal; however, offerors are requested to keep cost proposals to 100 pages or less as a goal.

Question #13: Should the cost proposal be broken out monthly, quarterly, or yearly?

A: A yearly breakout of the associated costs would be the most efficient and most acceptable means to the government. Recommend offerors follow FAR policy and guidelines.

Question #14: Can you provide clarification of desired rights for the Intellectual Property (IP)?

A: The government desires unlimited rights, but the contractor can claim less than unlimited rights for prior developed technology. Include assertions from DFARS 252.227-7013 and/or DFARS 252.227-7014 and be as specific as possible. The Air Force expects that there will be proprietary tools and data.

However, the Air Force desires the overarching architecture/framework to be made available to the greater composite materials community.

Question #15: Can you provide clarification regarding allowable pass through for subcontracting?

A: If the pass through is more than 70% of the work, the offeror will need to substantiate justification for the value of the pass through. See FAR 52.215-22 for further details.

Question #16: Can you provide clarification on annual software deliverables?

A: If software is developed as part of the program, it should be delivered to the government on an annual basis.

Question #17: Will the ManTech effort that is anticipated to compliment this BAA and FEP be competitive or sole source to the winner of the FEP contract?

A: The ManTech effort that is referenced here has not been officially approved by the RX Executive group. If it is approved, it is not certain yet how the contractual arrangements will be made.

Question #18: Can you provide more clarification in the unlimited rights? We have a specific example of proprietary work that was accomplished in an SBIR. Will the government assert unlimited rights on this work?

A: The statement in the BAA is primarily focused on the architecture framework. The Air Force wants a cohesive story from the contract winner that identifies the holes in the technology that includes the interchangeability of tools that are used in the framework. For the example of a SBIR effort, the claim for less than unlimited rights can be documented through specific identification of data to be delivered and the SBIR contract number.

Question #19: Do you have a vision of where the architecture framework will be stored or housed?

A: Offerors should consider how the program will be made available to the composite materials community after the program ends.

Question #20: Should the architecture framework be centralized? In addition, if the framework is to be housed with a prospective partner (subcontractor), does the partner need a license?

A: The contractor community will ultimately need to define the most optimum architecture framework.

Question #21: How firm is the funding profile? Does the cost proposal need to align with the profile in the BAA?

A: Any proposals under this BAA should align with funding as identified in the BAA.

Question #22: Does all reporting need to utilize MS Word documents as stated in the BAA? Our standard reporting is in PDF format.

A: The Technical/Management proposal must be submitted in MS Word format. The Cost proposal may be submitted in PDF format. Reports delivered during contract performance can be in PDF format, with the exception of the Final Report, which must be in MS Word format.

Question #23: Do you recommend proposing multiple material forms, processes, etc.?

A: The government recommends that offerors remain focused in association with the BAA, and avoid the mistake of being overly aggressive for the resources provided.

Question #24: How much flexibility is there in the formatting of the tables in the proposal?

A: Tables and charts should strictly adhere to the format identified in the solicitation.

Question #25: Why is the solicitation focused on High Temperature Polymer Matrix Composites

(HTPMCs)?

A: The government’s interest is to focus on the unique HTPMC needs of the Air Force.

Question #26: What are the barriers to transition mentioned in the solicitation?

A: The legacy barriers to transition of composite materials include extensive cost and increased length of time of inserting new materials, and the higher risk associated with selecting a new material for an application.

Question #27: For the critical program review at 27 months, should the government be involved in the decision of selecting key feature articles?

A: The government is expected to closely monitor progress and engage in critical program decisions when appropriate.

Question #28: How will the contractor interact with the RX ICME IPT?

A: The RX ICME IPT will not be directly involved in the FEP. The solicitation refers to a separate IPT that strictly involves this effort. The IPT referred to in the BAA is intended to coordinate other parallel RX in-house effort. However, we do not want to see products from this RX in-house activity on the critical path of contractor’s proposals.

Question #29: Should offerors give preference to existing or future problems in the selection of the key feature articles?

A: Whatever the application selected, it will need a baseline to demonstrate a Return on Investment

(ROI). Further, the offeror will need to explain where it most needs this technology. There should be a solid business case.

Question #30: Does the government want offerors to build a part and test it to validate the computational framework?

A: The intent of the key feature articles is to verify and validate the analysis and show progress in the program.

Question #31: Can we include government furnished equipment/resources in the proposal? As an example, can we propose the use of the high performance computing modernization program (HPCMP) resources to perform chemistry modeling?

A: The government wants offerors to consider mature commercial high temperature structural composite resin systems for which there are no existing methods to perform chemistry modeling.

Question #32: Does the government prefer to have one demo with progressively complex key feature articles or many demos that are each different through the program?

A: We caution offerors to avoid being overly aggressive. It is difficult to comment without more details.

Question #33: Is the government predisposed to particular composite processing methods?

A: No, the processing method will depend on the component that offerors are targeting.

Question #34: Does the target have to be an actual component?

A: The government is interested in solutions that document a business case for a particular component and for a targeted application including the ROI. We want a product that will be used by the composite materials stakeholders.

Question #35: Is proposing the use of high temperature thermoplastics like PEEK, etc. acceptable?

A: The use of PEEK is acceptable if it meets the targeted temperature capabilities and structural loading carrying capabilities.