ACTUV Updated Q and A _26Apr2010.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.

New Questions and Answers; April 26, 2010:

Q: What is the basis for the dimensions of the initial acquisition box (hand‐off area of uncertainty) called out in slide 12 of the classified PowerPoint presentation, and what is the classification level of these dimensions (slide appears unclassified)? Is the size of this acquisition box a firm requirement or an objective goal? Also with regard to the prior question, is a time limit associated with the probability of detection mentioned at Industry Day?

A: The quantitative examples of initial acquisition area, probability of detection, and other parameters presented at the classified sidebar and repeated at Industry Day should not be interpreted as firm requirements, but rather rough order of magnitude estimates of realistic operational capability and examples of the type of performance data expected to result from Phase 1 analyses. They could be used as the starting assumptions for ACTUV proposal definition and Phase 1 analyses, but proposers are encouraged to develop their own performance goals specific to their proposed system designs and concepts of operations.

The specific numbers provided at industry day are unclassified, and ACTUV Phase 1 performance parameters are not expected to be inherently classified unless derived from classified data such as classified threat information or classified U.S. system performance data. See the ACTUV SCG provided within the export controlled annex to the BAA for more information.

Q: With regard to estimating the price of the production units, what quantity of ACTUV units will be ordered per year, nominally? Should the estimated price include all mission equipment on ACTUV?

Is the supervisor’s station included in the price? In what year dollars should the price be reported (we assume 2010 dollars)?

A: For the purpose of ACTUV cost estimation, proposers may plan for production rates on the order of 10 units per year. Estimates should include procurement of all hardware directly associated with the proposed system (but not including lifecycle cost factors such as manpower, fuel, spare parts, etc.). A 2010 dollars basis would be preferred.

Q: At the top of page 7 in the BAA it states “The Government strongly desires to receive this performance specification a risk mitigation plan associated with transitioning intellectual property for future US military applications.”

‐ Should the word “and” be inserted after the word “specification”, or are there other changes to the sentence?

‐ With regard to the “risk mitigation plan” does DARPA want this to be part of the performance specification, or to be a separate document?

‐ Does “risk” refer only to the transitioning intellectual property, or the risks of achieving the specifications (cost, schedule performance), or both?

A: This sentence (with the preceding sentence) has been corrected to read, "A key deliverable from each performer in Phase 1 will be a preliminary performance specification. The Government strongly desires to receive with this performance specification a risk mitigation plan associated with transitioning intellectual property for future U.S. military applications."

While risk management of all risks associated with execution of the proposed concept will be evaluated, this sentence is intended to emphasize the desire for a clear description of any risks and proposed mitigation strategies associated with any intellectual property claims over the preliminary performance specification to be delivered at the end of Phase 1 that might hinder the Government’s intent to utilize that preliminary performance specification in any follow‐on solicitation.

Q: Does ACTUV need, or is it envisioned having, a direct communications link to target cueing assets such as SSNs, MPA or surface vessels, or will cueing be handled solely through the SATCOM link?

A: Proposers should include communications links as necessary to support their proposed concept of operations. At a minimum, it is envisioned that the system will require remote communication with a supervisor and SATCOM provides a realistic constraint on the bandwidth and reliability of that link.

The vessel will also likely need a bridge to bridge VHF marine radio to satisfy COLREGS. Additional communications capabilities for tactical coordination are acceptable if they support proposed system capabilities and CONOPS.

Q: Are hand‐delivered proposals on the due date acceptable?

A: Per Section 4.3, "Submission Dates and Times," the full proposal (original and designated number of hard and electronic copies) must be submitted to DARPA/TTO, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203‐1714 (Attn.: BAA 10‐43) on or before 4:00 p.m., local time (EDT), April 30, 2010, in order to be considered during the initial round of selections. Any delivery of proposals commensurate with any authorized means of transmission resulting in delivery by the due date is acceptable, including hand delivery.

Q: For proposers with multiple concepts under consideration, can we submit multiple proposals or would DARPA prefer a single proposal?

A: There is no prohibition on submitting multiple proposals, however, if possible DARPA would prefer that organizations considering multiple concepts select the best approach based on internal analysis to submit against the ACTUV BAA.

Q: “Overt trail” (BAA Section 1.0, page 4, paragraph 2) implies an open operation, without concealment (per JCS pub 1‐02). Given the overt mission profile, what is the purpose or intended outcome of:

“minimized exploitable signatures” (BAA Section 1.0. page 6, Mission Requirements)?

A: The ACTUV concept is based on overt trail of the submarine, meaning that the submarine would likely counter‐detect the ACTUV when it is in trail. The reference to "minimized exploitable signatures" is intended to convey that where practical and cost‐effective, it is desired that the ACTUV have a minimized signature commensurate with good engineering practices for military platforms. This is expected to be of particular value during the loiter phase of the ACTUV mission, where being readily detectable might allow potential targets to avoid the area prior to the ACTUV gaining trail. For example, as a semi‐submersible, the Unmanned Naval Vessel Undersea Warfare concept has a minimal above‐surface expression which would meet the intent of the BAA objectives.

The signature reference should be kept in context with the system cost objectives, and should not add significant cost or complexity to the vessel.

Q: What is the intended difference between the terms “intermittent beyond line of sight communications link” (BAA Section 1.0, page 4, para 3) and “continuous target location and activity reporting” (BAA Section 1.0, page 6, under Mission Requirements)? Intermittent and continuous communication present different constraints. Concerns:

‐ The communication profile of the ACTUV may require a continuous antenna exposure and RF signature. Does DARPA consider continuous communication for target location and activity reporting a requirement for ACTUV design alternatives?

‐ The Mission Requirement: “resilience to foreseeable countermeasures and countertactics” (section 1.0, page 6, Mission Requirements) introduces conflict if the ACTUV is overt and transmitting continuous RF. Will DARPA consider alternative concepts that examine trade‐offs between continuous communication and resilience to countermeasures and countertactics?

A: The term "intermittent beyond line of sight communications link" is intended to reflect analytical conclusions of the Unmanned Naval Vessel (UNV) Study that continuous wideband over‐the‐horizon communications is not likely to be feasible for ACTUV. This drives a dependence on robust onboard autonomy vice attempts to guarantee continuous connectivity for safe operations, mission accomplishment, and resilience to countermeasures. "Continuous target location and activity reporting" is meant to communicate that the system should maintain a precisely localized track of the target at all times and should be able to report that track when a communications path exists.

Consideration of alternate communication architectures, systems, and tactics to align proposed ACTUV concepts with operational capability is encouraged.

Q: The initial search area for acquisition is given in the industry day briefing as 100 km2. Does this mean that 1) the ACTUV is in the center of a 100 km2 area and the submarine is within 5.6 km sqrt(100/pi), of the vessel or 2) the ACTUV is at the edge of a 100 km2 area which must be searched?

A: The Industry Day Slide titled "ACTUV System Parameters" was intended to convey the types of parameters expected to result from Phase 1 analyses, with examples that corresponded roughly to estimated parameters for the Unmanned Naval Vessel Undersea Warfare concept. This goal, and other parameters on the slide, should not be perceived as requirements for ACTUV, but they could be used as the starting assumptions or goals for ACTUV concept development or Phase 1 analyses where applicable to specific proposed designs. In the case of the 100km2 example shown for limited area search capability to drive target location error out of the handoff cue to ACTUV, the notional CONOPS would indicate that ACTUV would approach the area from an edge.

Q: Can a team member of an Industry team submitting a full system concept design and operations analysis proposal for phase 1 of the BAA also submit smaller technology proposals for limited architecture/concept studies or alternate white papers? If yes, should it be done under the Industry Team proposal submittal or can it be done separately by the interested company/team member?

A: Yes. Individual team members can submit their concept study proposals separately from the Industry Team proposal if they are separate and independent proposals.

Q: Regarding the Basis of Estimate in Volume 1 the Technical Volume, for the Basis of Estimate would it be acceptable to provide the Total Labor Hours, Total Labor Costs, Subcontract Cost & Hours and Other Direct Costs at the summary level?

A: No. Volume 1 should include the complete BOE buildup, including the calculations and justifications for each element.

Q: Since a prime contractor is not privy to the Proprietary Financial Details of its teaming partners costs, the Subcontractor Costs will have to be provided with fully burden labor rates level, with labor hours and any fully burden other direct costs. The Subcontractors will need to provide their detailed financial information for the BOE, including proprietary information, in separate sealed packages.

This would be in addition to their fully detailed cost volume. Is this correct?

A: Yes. Please also have subcontractors correlate or at least annotate their proprietary BOE submissions with the prime WBS so it can be correlated back to Volume 1 of the prime proposal.

Q: Can 11"x17" foldouts be used in the Section II Summary of Proposal (the page limited ‐ 15 pages) section; and, if so, do the foldouts count as two pages each?

A: In conjunction with BAA section [insert reference], the proposal format is limited to 8.5" x 11" paper only.

Q. DARPA‐BAA‐10‐43; p 6, last paragraph; there is reference to wargaming as a Phase 1 activity;

wargaming typically implies red force on blue force modeling measuring attrition. For ACTUV do you mean this level of analysis or something closer to one on one engagement modeling, providing some level of performance assessment of our specific ACTUV approach?

A: Proposers are encouraged to include the level and fidelity of simulation that best fits their capabilities and assessed value to support ACTUV concept develop and design guidance.

Q. DARPA‐BAA‐10‐43; p. 17, paragraph B.iv.; the first line reads “BOE. Cost summary and BOE calculations associated with the specific SOW element should be detailed.”; typically the BOE is done for a WBS element, not a SOW element as the WBS is the program tool to track costs; we assume this to be by WBS element and not by the SOW element.

A: It is preferred that the SOW and WBS structures are aligned, so that BOE supporting WBS elements are inherently supporting SOW elements. If the proposed SOW and WBS structure are not aligned, proposers should allocate WBS elements to the SOW elements in order to provide BOE support to the SOW element as required in Volume 1.

Q. Does the submittal of a whitepaper simply mean that upon acceptance, a full proposal will be solicited or are there any other differences between that and the full proposal option?

A: White papers are intended to allow those entities that are unable to submit full proposals to offer their ideas for consideration in ACTUV concept development. It is possible that a white paper may lead to development of a subsequent full proposal, but DARPA does not guarantee any formal comment will result from a white paper submission nor guarantee any funding opportunities will result.

Q. The presentation's statement that "sub‐system technology risks are moderate" seems to indicate that the combination of well understood technologies should comprise the core vehicle concept: is this true? Our proposal would be based on a novel and DARPA‐hard propulsion system that could provide game‐changing performance.

A: Analysis conducted under the UNV study suggested that the majority of sub‐system technology risks are moderate, but proposers are free to suggest alternate performance/risk profiles and should justify how any increased risk is offset but compelling operational advantage.

Q. The PI here has a secret level security clearance, but the facility is not cleared (ITAR only), is this a detriment to possibility for award relating to the platform design (platform performance must be based on sub performance which is likely classified)?

A: Per Section 3.1 "Eligible Applicants," "Entities who are not capable of receiving, processing, and storing export controlled and classified information associated with this effort, including foreign entities, may still propose limited scope efforts associated with innovative unmanned system architectures, platform concept design, autonomy, and low cost production methods. It is not envisioned that efforts proposed by such entities can include submarine sensor subsystems, concept of operations development, and operations analysis on system effectiveness without access to classified information." If adequate organizational and security structures are in place to segregate operational analysis from platform design, it is possible for significant portions of the ACTUV design effort to be completed in an unclassified facility.

Q. Should we use the UNV resulting specifications as a guideline or are there (unclassified) specification values related to the following: top speed, longest duration of mission expected, expected percent of time at low, medium and high speeds?

A: The UNV study results are provided in conjunction with the ACTUV BAA to be indicative of the general level of desired system performance. Proposers are encouraged to consider these specifications, but are free to adapt them as necessary to fit with their particular system concept and approach.

Within a Phase 1 effort, analysis should validate or redefine these specifications as necessary.