ACTUV_Updated_Q A_23Mar2010.pdf

ACTUV BAA 10‐43

Questions and Answers

Originally Posted March 5, 2010:

Q: Is there a particular a target award/Phase 1 start date that proposers should use for cost proposals?

A: Please assume a Phase 1 start date of September 1, 2010.

Q: Is the ACTUV platform limited to unmanned vehicles that always operate on the ocean surface?

A: No, there is not a requirement that the vessel always operate on the ocean surface, however, proposers should carefully consider the impacts to system complexity in light of the endurance objectives when weighing the benefit of unconventional modes of operation.

Q: Is it acceptable for the ACTUV vehicle to carry lethal weapons, at least for self defense?

A: Proposers should not presume authorization to carry lethal weapons within the scope of the DARPA ACTUV program, but design allocations for future weaponization are acceptable.

Q: In Sections 1.0 and 5.1.1 the BAA refers to “concept adaptability” and “system adaptability to future threats and missions”. How important an evaluation criterion for determining success in Phase 1 will such adaptability be?

A: While the ACTUV program is focused on a specific operational mission, there is a desire to maximize the broader utility of both the specific ACTUV platform, as well as critical subsystems to support other Unmanned Naval Vessels. For example, it has been postulated that if successfully developed for an ASW trail mission, the Undersea UNV concept could be adapted to carry other payloads in lieu of ASW sensors and/or fuel. The adaptability of a platform concept or broader applicability of enabling technology efforts will be assessed as part of the “Technical Merit of the Concept” evaluation criteria, which is equally weighted against the other criteria.

Q: In Section 1.0 the BAA refers to “clean sheet design based on no person stepping aboard in its operating cycle.” Does its operating cycle include a maintenance period? How deeply engaged in the vessel must a person be to be considered “aboard”?

A: The term operating cycle is intended to represent all system states including deployment preparation, operational deployment, routine post deployment maintenance, and inter‐deployment storage (major refit periods such as mid‐life refurbishment may be reasonably excluded). This statement is not intended to imply that no human maintenance is required during non‐deployed states. The intent is that platform design should leverage unique unmanned system architectures, and need not make internal volume allocations for maintenance access if alternate approaches that offer improved efficiency and platform performance can be achieved.

Q: Can DARPA give us guidance on what the appropriate security reference documents are for transferring classified information/documents among ACTUV industry team members if no DD Form 254 is to be issued?

A: Contrary to the guidance provided at Industry Day, security policies have been codified such that DARPA will now issue a DD Form 254 to any recipient of the classified annex, in conjunction with receiving the annex. Consistent with the related guidance presented at Industry, a DD Form 254 is not required to submit classified proposals, and will be provided only in conjunction with the receipt of classified material from DARPA.

New Questions and Answers; March 23, 2010:

Q: Are there specific threshold and objective metrics for KPPs such as radar cross‐section, top sprint speed, endurance, range, etc.?

A: No, there will not be any performance specification issued as part of the Phase 1 solicitation.

Development of system performance specification is intended as part of Phase 1 scope.

Q: Can we assume the same design reference mission (range, speed, endurance) as the UNV Study for our threshold requirement?

A: Yes, it is reasonable to use the UNV Study as a performance point of departure, but proposers are not constrained to this. Proposers are encouraged to develop and validate their own performance parameters consistent with their particular system concept and mission approach.

Q: How should we account for foul weather such as hurricanes or typhoons in the design of the ACTUV?

Will performance specifics be relaxed?

A: For operations, ACTUV concept designs should take into consideration typical weather variations for areas of interest to the maximum extent possible, while acknowledging that a particular design will have a maximum sea state limit. In higher sea states, where operations may no longer be possible, ACTUV designs should still have a goal of hull survivability to the maximum extent possible. In the vicinity of extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes or typhoons, reliance on remote supervisory control to keep the vessel out of the most hazardous conditions would be acceptable.

Q: At the Industry Day, a notional reliability metric of 95% was presented. It seems as though this would be too low a bar if for every 1 hour and 40 minutes there would be 5 minutes of theoretical downtime. Would a higher level of reliability be more desirable?

A: The 95% notional reliability was intended to convey system‐level reliability commensurate with 95 out of 100 missions returning to base as planned.

Q: For “safe navigation” what, if any, is the software standard proposers should consider?

A: To the best of our knowledge, there is not a software standard directly applicable to a vessel of this type, but any choice of certifications or standards would generally be left to the discretion of the proposer.

Q: Is it expected that the system be controlled at a particular classification level, unclassified, or multiple levels?

A: Please refer to the ACTUV Security Classification Guide provided as part of the annex to the ACTUV BAA for guidance on system classification. In general, the system parameters are unclassified except when based on classified sources. DARPA can receive proposal information classified at any level.

Q: What are the “rules of engagement” with respect to civilian salvage efforts? Are we allowed to or required to take into account what third party civilians might do to an unmanned vessel?

A: Considering that ACTUV is a technology and system demonstration program intended to break new ground in the area of unmanned surface vessels, ambiguities in maritime law are expected to persist throughout the duration of the program. However, within the scope of the program, proposers are encouraged to consider reasonable threats in the system design.

Q: Presuming a successful demonstration, how many ACTUVs does DARPA think the Navy will procure after Phase 4?

A: While DARPA cannot speculate on future Navy acquisitions, for the purpose of ACTUV system design and lifecycle cost analysis, proposers may plan for production quantities on the order of 100.

Q: Will this vehicle have to avoid submarine countermeasures (e.g. torpedo)?

A: Yes, the vehicle should expect hostile attack during a wartime scenario.

Q: May this vehicle perform diving maneuvers?

A: Yes, this would be permissible, but proposers should carefully consider the impacts to system complexity in light of the endurance objectives when weighing the benefit of unconventional modes of operation.

Q: Should the vehicle reacquire a submarine trail it lost?

A: Yes, reacquisition should be attempted.

Q: How long does the vehicle have to recover a lost submarine trail?

A: Within ACTUV Phase 1, proposers are encouraged to investigate technologies which would enhance the vehicle's organic reacquisition capability to the maximum extent practical. The variation in different concepts' ability to reacquire a lost contact could distinguish their ability to support realistic concepts of operation.

Q: Some press reports have used the term “frigate” to describe ACTUV. Does DARPA expect the vessel to be of similar size as a frigate?

A: For Phase 1 concepts, there is no constraint or requirement concerning the size of the ACTUV. The intent is for the design to be sized to deliver the necessary performance, without arbitrary limits. As a point of reference, the Unmanned Naval Vessel (UNV) Undersea Warfare concept that was briefed at the ACTUV Industry Day has the following characteristics:

‐ Full Load Displacement: 157 tons ‐ Length: 19.1 m ‐ Beam: 5.8 m ‐ Draft: 10.1 m ‐ Height Above Water: 4.3 m

Q: Does ACTUV need to autonomously undock and dock?

A: No, it would be permissible to guide the ACTUV under local remote control and/or receive assistance from another craft such as a tug boat or pilot vessel.

Q: The BAA states "The Defense Appropriations Act caps indirect cost rates for any procurement contract or cooperative agreement using 6.1 Basic Research Funding at 35% of the total cost of the award". Does DARPA anticipate that 6.1 Basic Research Funding will be utilized for awards under

DARPA‐BAA‐10‐43?

A: At this time DARPA believes that 6.2 funding will be used for ACTUV Phase 1, and 6.2 funding is not subject to the 35% cap on indirect cost rates.

Q: The Industry Day slides mentioned a range requirement of 3000 km. What exactly goes into that number? Is that one way to an operating area (OA) or round trip or total capability once in the OA or total requirement to and from plus being in OA? How long should we expect the ACTUV to be on station in the OA?

A: The 3000 km mission radius was part of the basis for sizing the Undersea Warfare UNV concept.

More details are included in the UNV Undersea Warfare Concept Report, but the general basis for sizing the 157‐ton Undersea UNV concept was a 3000 km on station mission radius, plus a 30‐day low‐speed loiter, followed by a 30‐day max energy trail mission (unrefueled). More details of these mission profile assumptions are in the upper‐right graphic on the Industry Day slide titled “ACTUV System Parameters.” These assumptions, and other parameters on the slide, should not be perceived as requirements for ACTUV, but they could be used as the starting assumptions for ACTUV Phase 1 analyses where applicable to specific proposed designs.