MAST_Call_2_Industry_Day_Q As.pdf

MAST Call 2 Industry Day Friday, March 13, 2015 MAST Call 2 Industry Day Attendees:

Company POC POC email address Sporian Microsystems Michael Usrey musrey@sporian.com

Acellent Technologies Inc. Amrite Kumar akumar@acellent.com

Orbital ATK Sharon Dressen sharon.dressen@orbitalatk.com

Veracity Ryan Monson r.monson@veracityFA.com

Aerojet-Rocketdyne Nancy Carpenter nancy.carpenter@Rocket.com

IllinoisRocstar LLC Mark Brandyberry mdbrandy@illinoisrocstar.com

Government Attendees:

Dr. Erik Weber, AFRL/RQRM, erik.weber@us.af.mil James Singleton, AFRL/RQRM, james.singleton.7@us.af.mil Dr. Darrell Marchant, AFRL/RQRM, Darrel.marchant@us.af.mil Adam Ebnit, AFRL/RQRM, adam.ebnit.1@us.af.mil Geoffrey Trapp, AFRL/RQRM, geoffrey.trapp@us.af.mil Kathrin Day, AFTC/PZRA, kathrin.day@us.af.mil Justin Van Orsdol, AFTC/PZRA, justin.van_orsdol.1@us.af.mil Rosann Knarreborg, AFTC/PZRA, rosann.knarreborg.1@us.af.mil Matthew Chartier, AFTC/PZRA, matthew.chartier.2@us.af.mil

General call or background questions:

1. Do the restrictions on foreign participation preclude sensors obtained from vendors outside of the US?

Foreign participation refers to team of personnel or companies. The ITAR restrictions mean that no information about the use or application can be passed to the vendor. The acquisition of foreign supplies must be in compliance with FAR 25.

2. Call 2 looks like standard aging program. Is there any intent to exercise new sensors or physics-based models? Are specific systems of interest going to be required?

Call 2 is focused on demonstrating RP21 goal attainment, to that end measuring the predictive uncertainty improvements over the measured baseline. New sensors and physics-based models are very likely to be involved, but only as an integrated part of the demonstration, not exercised separately. AFRL is not specifying a specific system of interest, only the goal and requirements needed to meet that goal, but it should be relevant to current and future strategic missiles.

3. In section III-1.4.10.2, is the table intended to be comprehensive because section I-1.5 contains 11 requirements (I-1.5.1 through I-1.5.11) and the table only contains 9 (I-1.5.1 through I-1.5.9)?

The CDRLs are comprehensive.

Yes, section III-1.4.10.2 should include requirements 1.5.10 and 1.5.11. It will be corrected in the final version.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. PA# 15206 mailto:musrey@sporian.com mailto:akumar@acellent.com mailto:sharon.dressen@orbitalatk.com mailto:r.monson@veracityFA.com mailto:nancy.carpenter@Rocket.com mailto:mdbrandy@illinoisrocstar.com mailto:erik.weber@us.af.mil mailto:james.singleton.7@us.af.mil mailto:Darrel.marchant@us.af.mil mailto:adam.ebnit.1@us.af.mil mailto:geoffrey.trapp@us.af.mil mailto:kathrin.day@us.af.mil mailto:justin.van_orsdol.1@us.af.mil mailto:rosann.knarreborg.1@us.af.mil mailto:matthew.chartier.2@us.af.mil

4. Amendment 1 dated “10 February 2015” does not clearly amend the original BAA release dated “February 2015”. Much of Amendment 1 does not appear to change the original document. For example: CDRLs do not seem to be addressed in the Amendment 1 document.

The MAST BAA Amendment 1 (dated 10 February 2015) is an amendment to the general, overarching MAST BAA and does not include any Calls. The MAST DRAFT Call 2 document (dated February 2015) is only specific to Call 2 and does not include any of the general BAA information. Call 1 documentation was a little simpler because the general BAA and Call 1 were issued at the same time.

5. Can AFRL explain if there is a difference between “scientific methodology” and “proposal methodology” to validate RP21 2017 A&S goals? (refer to paragraphs I-1.5.3 and I-1.5.4 respectively) There is no difference. I-1.5.3 will be adjusted to specific contractor RP21 baseline (only) and I-

1.5.4 will be adjusted to specify RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment (only). This will result in one requirement to apply methodology to baseline and one requirement to apply methodology to goal demonstration.

6. Section I-1.7.1 states “The methodology to experimentally verify contractor A&S baseline and RP21 A&S goal attainment shall be documented, reviewed and accepted by the Government-lead A&S IPT, and published on DTIC within six months of award. This methodology report is defined as CDRL A007.” Will the AF authorize pre-test activities based on contractor internally released test plan approved by the AF prior to release of the document through DTIC?

Yes, authorization for material and pre-test activities will be based on government-led A&S IPT acceptance, not release date through DTIC.

7. Section I-1.8.2.1 states “BAA reference section VII items #2 and #4 discuss relevant aspects of experiment validation.” Does the supplemental package include reference documents or just the extended bibliography?

Section 1-1.8.2.1 refers to the BAA reference section of the overarching BAA document (the general BAA dated 10 February 2015). The supplemental package includes technical reference documents that are not distribution A.

8. Section III-1.4.5 states “…If computational resources are to be used as part of the program, the development and applicability of these techniques to the experimental validation are to be explained…” What computational resources are being referred to here?

That statement does not refer to specific computational resources. The statement is included to emphasize that *IF* the offeror proposes to use computational resources (that is, computer models, assessment software, etc.) then the offeror must explain the source/quality/stage/etc.

of development and specify the applicability in section 3 of the proposal.

9. Since IMLM DAAS will complete in 2015, will the further development of that system be funded or not? If simulation tool development that directly uses the produced asset aging data from Call 2 and results in better predictions for IMLM DAAS, is that in scope or not?

MAST Call 2 is bigger than IMLM DAAS, and the overall AFRL/RQRM Aging and Surveillance program is much larger then MAST and IMLM DAAS efforts. MAST Call 2 is not just about how aging is monitored or integration of previously developed technology but demonstrating the RP21 goal attainment. Technology development and maturation does not stop after IMLM DAAS or even the MAST program, and additional technology or methodologies may be used to demonstrate the predictive uncertainty reduction. There are other Calls in MAST that include technology development or software demonstrations to advance the technology. These new technologies would be relevant to the RP21 2027 A&S goal attainment.

IMLM DAAS and any previous successful technology development may be included in future efforts, but future development is not specific to any previously developed technology. The data produced from MAST Call 2 is intended to help future and hopefully, concurrently executing programs.

10. What is the definition of standalone development?

Call 2 is focused on collecting data over the course of four to five years to demonstrate RP21 2017 A&S goal achievement. Efforts that only develop a new or improve technology (for example: a new sensor, and improved physics-based model) are standalone development and will not be considered under this effort, but could be proposed under future calls.

11. Could data from Call 2 help support Call 1?

In general, data from A&S projects can be utilized in other future and concurrent efforts, and the utilization of the IPT structure is to help facilitate this.

12. Does Call 2 address reducing prediction uncertainties?

Call 2 does address reducing predictive uncertainty as a RP21 2017 A&S goal demonstration effort. In doing so technology maybe matured but there is no intent to develop new technologies. Follow-on Calls will develop technologies to further reduce the predictive uncertainty to meet the RP21 2027 A&S goal.

13. Was IMLM DAAS a culmination of knowledge and technology? Are there other technologies not included in the IMLM DAAS demonstration?

IMLM DAAS was a culmination of previously developed technology as well as a risk reduction effort for the integration of a solid rocket motor IVHM system. IMLM DAAS by no means was an exhaustive culmination of all technologies developed to date, promising technologies were dropped along the way in the IMLM DAAS effort as well.

14. In BAA Call 2 I-1.5.1 and I-1.5.5, it states how the program’s methodologies and technologies shall rigorously verify the customer’s A&S baseline. In I-1.5.3 it calls for the RP21 2017 A&S baseline. Can you provide a better understanding on how the customer baseline is calculated, especially how the health state uncertainty is calculated?

Every instance of the word “customer” in final Call 2 it will be changed to “contractor”. These sections are referring to the technology baseline that the offeror proposes.

IPT Questions:

1. The BAA states that FFRDC might participate in IPT. Does AFRL have one in mind?

Not at this time

2. Can interested parties without a contract in Call 2 participate in the IPT?

Yes, AFRL wants to include a variety of subject matter experts, including commercial partners.

An invitation to participate or advise an IPT does not constitute an obligation for the government to pay for participation. There will be inexpensive opportunities to participate (for example, IPT meetings maybe teleconferences). It is anticipated that Call 1, Call 2, and potential future Calls will all partake in a combined IPT meeting.

3. If we want to participate in IPT, do we just ask?

The government anticipates both invitation SME and accepting requests to participate in IPT meetings. It is the government’s intention to publicize IPT, possibly in the same process as for this BAA (i.e. FBO.gov), the specifics are yet to be fully determined.

Test motor/environment questions:

1. Can subscale motors be utilized for the representative motors?

The budget and timeframe do not support the utilization of full-scale motor; therefore AFRL anticipates that motors used for Call 2 will be subscale. Refer to BAA Call 2 section III-1.4.7 for section of proposal that must discuss/justify selection of motors used and rationale for size, amount, etc.

2. Are there elements in representational motors that strike AFRL as critical? What is meant by “representative propellants” and “representative motors”? Is aluminized propellant the baseline? Are center-perforated motors the baseline? Are metal cases acceptable? If metal case is available, could we add composite monitoring technology to metal case? On slide 19 of the Industry Day presentation, what does “representational motor with common SRM features” refer to?

The motor design for the representative motors should include features, materials, and manufacturing techniques that were or will be utilized on current or future operational strategic systems. There will be compromises to go from full-scale to subscale. BAA draft Call 2 section III-

1.4.7 states that proposal shall describe representative motor and reason for selection in comparison to a current or future operational strategic missile system. For example: a motor that is an end-burner, with minimum smoke propellant and a very high L/D heavy weight steel case, is likely not representative of strategic motors but the offeror is advised to show traceability to a vision operational strategic motor.

3. Bullet 2 on slide 26 cites statistically significant number of motors and relevant environments, but typically accelerated aging is not performed in relevant environments. Does AFRL want accelerating aging used or want to stress system in extreme environment that system might never see?

AFRL does anticipate stressed environments as part of the RP21 goal demonstration. BAA draft Call 2 section III-1.4.7 cites the rationale needed for proposed conditions as 1) goal attainment,

2) interpretation of that goal attainment finding to other assets and operational programs, and

3) best value to the government. Proposal needs to explain how proposed (stressed) environments are representative/correlate with relevant environments to demonstrate goal achievement.

4. Do you want contractor to test multiple propellant families?

AFRL would rather see more motors and environments tested than multiple propellants but given compelling justification for how it demonstrates RP21 A&S goal attainment it would be considered.

5. Section I-1.5.6 refers to “propellants representative of those found in strategic motors”. Will AFRL identify desired propellants or is this part of each proposal to identify?

AFRL will not specify desired propellants beyond the desire to be 1) directly applicable to RP21 goal attainment, 2) interpretation of that goal attainment finding to other assets and strategic missiles, and 3) best value to the government. Selection of proposed material would be justified in section 5 of the proposal (see section III-1.4.7 of the Call 2 draft).

6. This call specifically talks about motors. Some program might use propellant blocks or samples to get cleaner data that can be modeled. Would AFRL be interested in a proposal to use propellant samples to learn more about aging?

The use of propellant samples is not precluded by effort, but goal attainment must be demonstrated using configurations resembling motors, and particularly AFRL is interested in representations of strategic assets. Development can include analog (cartons, cantilever beams, etc.) in addition to motor hardware to support the understanding of the PR21 goal attainment.

Use of any an analog will improve the demonstration of the goal.

7. Are we to tell you existing lifespan of motor? Was the baseline defined at the end of AMPT TO1? Could we go beyond that to include additional improvements?

Baseline is not necessarily service life or motor lifespan; it is uncertainty around service life. The contractor baseline would be based on the TSSS Phase I technology baseline, and additional technological improvements would be included to achieve that RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment.

8. BAA Call 2 cites use of non-proprietary motors. What are we required to share with community?

Do companies need to offer specifics of motor selection or fabrication?

AFRL’s intent is unlimited data rights for all BAA Call 2 projects. This is crucial for the IPT environment to be effective. It will be important to share details and mechanisms relevant to the aging of motors and the understanding of that aging, but company’s proprietary details outside of that would not need to be shared. It is AFRL’s intention to use data derived from BAA Call 2 efforts on as many follow-on projects as possible, to support future technology developments and future RP21 goal attainment. Specific fabrication methods can be considered company proprietary and excluded as long as the above comments regarding sharing information in the IPT is still possible.

9. Is MAST Call 2, designed to develop or prove technology for GBSD?

Not directly, but it is a key transition opportunity. GBSD would be representative of a future operational asset. Propellants and features related to GBSD would be desirable. Proposals need to justify applicability and highlight benefit to government for relevancy to an operational asset and environment.

Baseline Questions:

1. Can you help offerors understand how AFRL determined baseline and uncertainty?

We are currently in the process of getting supplemental package together. PowerPoint in Call 1 supplemental package defined goal and how it is calculated, but not the baseline values. The baseline numeric value will be in Call 2 supplemental package and is technologies necessary to achieve TSSS Phase I goal.

2. Is there a report that explains methodologies and assumptions for the baseline?

Supplemental package will include a PowerPoint that explains how the government baseline was determined, and the method it was calculated.

3. Is baseline updated for IMLM DAAS?

No, IMLM DAAS would not be included in the baseline due to it started after the completion of the TSSS Phase I.

4. Clarify what AFRL means by “TSSS A&S Phase I Technologies”. Does the government consider the TSSS A&S Phase I technologies baseline as post-SLPT technologies (2003 state-of-the-art)?

TSSS A&S Phase I technology baseline are those technologies developed before approximately 2006 or the start of the Advanced Missile Propulsion Technology (AMPT) task orders. The AMPT task order 1 final reports show technologies and some numeric baseline (will be included in the supplemental package). Specific technologies that AFRL considers as the baseline will not be provided, only the value of predictive uncertainty and the roll-ups from key contributors to this uncertainty, such as from environment, geometry, and materials.

5. Does data collected need to show effect on RP21 goals?

Yes, the desire is for both individual contributions and how they roll up to the overall goal. For example, the preference is "model A provides ±X and this result in an uncertainty prediction of ±Z; data B provides ±Y and this result in an uncertainty prediction of ±Z; data C … ; all resulting in an overall uncertainty prediction of ±Z’.

Requirement Questions:

1. In I-1.5. of the Call 2 announcement, it states that proposed programs must meet all of the requirements in I-1.5.1 through I-1.5.11. Some contractors may have a desire to participate in the defining and reviewing the technology suite and scientific methodology, but not other portions of the call. For Call 2, does AFRL have a desire to include subject matter expertise from contractors that do not wish to participate in the manufacturing and testing of propellant?

Proposals for Call 2 must include efforts to meet ALL requirements of that Call. This Call is focused on the entire RP21 A&S 2017 goal attainment demonstration. There are other Calls on this project that include technology and software developments or demonstrations.

2. On slide 29 of the Industry Day presentation Page 29, a possible transition of motor hardware to the government is mentioned. Does transfer of assets to government storage at end of program require pricing for building shipping crates and shipping costs?

Requirements of transitioning motor to the government will define in final release of Call 2. In general the pricing for building shipping crates and shipping costs would be included if items will be transferred to the government.

3. The industry day presentation for Call 1 page 40, states that the minimum exit TRL for Call 2 is TRL 5. Is that still the desired exit criteria for Call 2?

TRL requirements into Call 2 are not currently part of the draft Call 2 document. AFRL will update Call 2 with a more precise clarification.

4. Would a TRL 6 be considered appropriate exit criteria?

TRL 6 would be appropriate but the specific exit criteria will be in the final Call 2.

5. What are the expected entrance and exit criteria in terms of TRL for the technologies included in this validation effort?

We have not determined at this point but entrance TRL need to be high enough that it can be matured without significantly increasing risk on the program, and the exit criteria would likely be TRL 5 or greater. The critical part is that uncertainties of all the technologies at the end would be rolled up into the predictive uncertainty assessment of the goal.

6. Can the motor test beds be Government Furnished Property (GFP)? In I-4.2 it states that GFP may be involved.

AFRL is not planning on providing any GFP to this effort. GFP can be included if the offeror secures the GFP, but BAA Call 2 section I-4.2 states that proposed use of GFP must include identification the source and location of the item or information; who owns it (include point of contact with phone number); the value of the property; approval from the property owner; and how, when, and for how long it will be made available under the proposed effort.

7. How would the use of GFP motors affect the potential transfer of motor to Government for further aging? If the proposal uses GFP and the owner wants it back at the end of the contract, would that be acceptable?

The disposition of GFP would need to be determined at the end of the contract. Yes, GFP may be returned or kept on the original government contract. The potential of transfer of motor to the government for further aging to aid RP21 2027 goal and a potential risk reduction due to longer aging time is acceptable.

8. Does majority of software development need to keep in mind integrating into the overall A&S system?

All technologies are intended to be part of the overall Aging and Surveillance system. The system is not completely defined including interfaces and overall structure, but it will not be fully automated and will have significant human in the loop portions.