DARPA-BAA-11-01 Q As - 11-12-10.docx

System F6, DARPA-BAA-11-01 Questions & Answers 10/20/10 - 11/5/10

Question 1:

Will performing work on BAA 11-01 “F6,” specifically the F6 Developer’s Kit (FDK), create an OCI in performing work in later F6 BAAs?

Answer 1:

No.

Question 2:

When does DARPA expect awards to be announced?

Answer 2:

Awards will be announced as soon as they are made. Contracting negotiation timelines vary on a case-by-case basis.

Question 3:

What start date does DARPA recommend using for execution?

Answer 3:

In the proposal, use the phrase “x months after contact award” for all dates. Replace “x” with the appropriate number.

Question 4:

If a company is currently a SETA or a different government agency, can they still bid?

Answer 4:

As the BAA states, “All Proposers and proposed subcontractors must affirm whether they are providing scientific, engineering, and technical assistance (SETA) or similar support to any DARPA technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract.” In general, OCI arises from SETA-type support to DARPA. However, OCI may also be implicated if an offeror provides support to any other agency that actively participates in the System F6 program, including, for instance, NASA Ames Research Center, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and the National Security Agency (NSA). Offerors should disclose all potential conflicts.

Question 5:

How does DARPA intend to manage IP protections between teams?

Answer 5:

As the BAA states, “The Government desires Unlimited Rights to all deliverables under this program except clearly-identified commercial items, with their commercial availability described and substantiated in the proposal.” Consequently, no proprietary intellectual property will need to be exchanged in the course of program-wide PI meetings between the various performers and performer teams.

Question 6:

On page 6, the BAA-11-01 states, “each technical area in this BAA is structured with a base period of performance of 6 months of preliminary architecture design, culminating in a design review and trade study deliverable (Milestone A). Offers must include as a priced 12-month option to their proposal, a detailed architecture development activity, culminating in complete prototype software or hardware (as appropriate) build (Milestone B). Offerors must also include in their proposal a second 12-month priced option for a verification, validation, and regulatory approval support activity, culminating in a flight readiness review (Milestone C). Proposal must follow this structure.” Should the 3 periods be referred as “Phase” or “Milestone”? For example:

· Phase 1, 6 Months, Option Phase 2, 12 Months and Option Phase 3, 12 Months

· Milestone A, 6 Months, Option Phase 2, 12 Months and Option Phase 3, 12 Months Answer 6:

Base Period (Milestone A), Option Period 1 (Milestone B), and Option Period 2 (Milestone C). The word “phase” should be avoided.

Question 7:

On page 7 of the BAA, the Gantt chart shows Space-based Broad Area Network (BGAN) being part of the F6 program since the middle of FY10. Are we to assume that using BGAN needs to be part of the proposal?

Answer 7:

No technical area in the present BAA should be substantively affected by the inclusion or exclusion of any particular payload (e.g., Inmarsat SB-SAT BGAN terminal) from the ultimate demo mission.

Question 8:

Page 7, Figure 2, includes “Algorithm Prize Challenges”. What are the Algorithm Prize Challenges? How do they fit into the BAA response, program, and funding and/or technical areas?

Answer 8:

The prize challenges were described at the Proposers’ Day (the videos are linked from the F6 webpage). They have no substantive bearing on the present BAA.

Question 9:

Is there any preference toward teaming? Is there a requirement for large companies to team with small companies? Is there a teaming site?

Answer 9:

There is no preference for teaming. The purpose of this program is to disaggregate across multiple solicitations and across multiple technical areas. The technical areas were developed to make sure that teaming is not a prerequisite to participation. There is no teaming site. However, a discussion group is available: http://groups.google.com/group/system-f6

Question 10:

Will there be a small business set aside?

Answer 10:

No.

Question 11:

Page 8 – Program Scope & Structure states, "international participation in this solicitation is welcomed." Please confirm that this BAA is not restricted to US contractors or US academic institutions and there will be foreign involvement.

Answer 11:

Correct – this BAA is not restricted to U.S. participation. However, this does not exempt performers from compliance with all such U.S. laws and regulations as may be applicable.

Question 12:

Will F6 leverage work being done in ORS, i.e., plug-n-play technology out of AFRL?

Answer 12:

Using an existing standard, like PnP, is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Any good innovative solution that answers the problem articulated in the BAA is welcomed.

Question 13:

Page 16 states: “In addition to proposal preparation guidance described in Section IV.B.5 below, offerors should include in the Technical Approach section of the proposal." The referenced section, Section IV.B.5 on page 33, is entitled “Intergovernmental Review” and listed as “Not applicable”. Please confirm that the reference to Section IV.B.5 is correct.

Answer 13:

The reference on page 16 is incorrect; please follow the proposal preparation guidance in Section IV.B.3, “Proposal Format.”

Question 14:

Can classified portions of the proposal (i.e. past performance experience) be provided as a classified submittal, maintaining required page limits? (Reference: Page 20 – Section IV Application & Submission Information, B.1 Security and Proprietary Issues.)

Answer 14:

Yes.

Question 15:

Should the title of Section 2.1 be “Summary Chart” instead of “PowerPoint Summary Chart”?

Answer 15:

The Summary Chart may be composed and submitted using programs other than PowerPoint; however, the file type must be compatible with Microsoft Office or Adobe PDF for ease of viewing by the review team.

Question 16:

Page 25, Section 2.4 Intellectual Property, refers to Section VI.B.1. However, Section VI.B.1 is entitled “Meeting and Travel Requirements.” Please provide correct section reference.

Answer 16:

Please refer to the sections under VIII.A for instructions regarding Intellectual Property.

Question 17:

Page 26, Section 2.5 Management Plan, states, "Provide detailed task descriptions, costs, and interdependencies for each individual effort and/or subcontractor." Is "individual effort" defined as tasks/subtasks as defined in our SOW, or effort by each individual team member? Please clarify what is meant by "individual effort."

Answer 17:

“Individual effort,” in this context, refers to an individual team member’s contribution, if any.

Question 18:

On Page 26, proposal Section 2.7, the BAA asks for two types of cost information. How do they differ? It appears that the only difference is that the first is by month & task, and the second is by year & task. The referenced paragraphs are:

b. {2 pages} Cost Summary. Provide a top level total cost summary for the entire program. Show each major task and subtask by month and delineate prime and major subcontractor efforts.

c. {2 pages} Cost, schedule and measurable milestones for the proposed research, including estimates of cost for each task in each year of the effort delineated by the prime and major subcontractors, total cost and company cost share, if applicable. (Note: Measurable milestones should capture key development points in tasks and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to start of effort.) Show all project milestones. Use “x months after contract award” designations for all dates.

Answer 18:

The cost summary is meant to be a high level view of only major tasks and subtasks. It should provide the Government with a good overall picture of the costs involved, general breakdown and prime/sub task breakdowns. The subsequent cost section should contain full cost detail including all measurable milestones, schedule, prime/sub breakdown, etc.

Question 19:

Please provide the weighting (%) of the evaluation criteria on page 31 of the draft BAA.

Answer 19:

Evaluation criteria are not assigned specific percentage values but are listed in descending order of importance.

Question 20:

Will summary reports and/or detailed evaluations from the prior BAA Phase 1 teams be made available? E.g., is there a “warehouse” of deliverables from prior F6 work to inform follow on efforts in the specific technical choices DARPA has made relative to F6?

Answer 20:

Deliverables from previous F6 contracts will be made available on a case-by-case basis where the deliverables of those prior efforts are considered constructive, such as the value-centric design tools available on the DARPA website. These aren’t necessarily examples to follow; just prior state of the art that are thought to be potentially informative.

Question 21:

Are the years specified in the table given in Section 2.6 (Personnel, Qualifications and Commitments) in terms of Government fiscal years or calendar years?

Answer 21:

Government fiscal years.

Question 22:

Are the DARPA proposed working groups for technical area interface part of the contract and if so what are the requirements for these working groups?

Answer 22:

It is unclear what “working groups” the questioner refers to. As the BAA states, “All milestone reviews will be conducted in the form of principal investigator (PI) meetings—occurring bi-monthly—at which all performers across the various technical areas will be present.” Milestone delivery at these PI meetings will be part of the contracted effort and offerors should construct their proposals accordingly.

Question 23:

“All milestone reviews will be conducted in the form of PI meetings – occurring bi-monthly” - does bi-monthly mean twice a month or once every 2 months?

Answer 23:

Once every two months.

Question 24:

In regard to the bi-monthly meetings at government-furnished facilities: Are you able to provide more details or assumptions regarding the occurrence, location, and length of meetings to accurately report Travel & Living expenses in the priced Base and Options?

Answer 24:

The PI meetings will be held at Government-furnished facilities in major U.S. or international metropolitan areas with easy access by air. PI meetings can be assumed to be two-day-long events with a PM, PI, and one or two key technical experts from each performer team in attendance.

Question 25:

Does this BAA result in a spacecraft build and/or launch if both 12 month options are funded? If not, what is the output of the second 12 month option?

Answer 25:

This is described in detail in the BAA and in the Proposers’ Day videos which are available on the System F6 public website linked from the DARPA/TTO website.

Question 26:

Do you expect to downselect from the Base period to Option 1, then from Option 1 to Option 2?

Answer 26:

DARPA reserves the right to exercise contract options as necessary to best address program objectives.

Question 27:

For Technical Area 3 at Milestone A, does the Government expect preliminary software as part of the deliverable denoted as “Draft Layer 3 through 7 input to the FDK” or is the required input limited to documents (e.g., Interface Definition Documents) and specifications for routines, data structures, object classes, and protocols?

Answer 27:

This should be a draft version of the FDK, which includes, “interface standards, protocols, software, behaviors, and reference implementations thereof.” So yes, software should be included.

Question 28:

Will each of the technical areas receive equal amounts of the total award?

Answer 28:

No. This is entirely at the Government’s discretion and will depend on the proposals received.

Question 29:

Will the technical assistance agreement (TAA) be developed by DARPA on behalf of F6 awardees?

Answer 29:

No, each awardee will need to participate in the development of the TAA, should it be needed. DARPA will facilitate the necessary communication among awardees.

Question 30:

What is considered "substantial time commitment" for a contributor to be considered "key personnel"?

Answer 30:

Key personnel are determined by the importance of their contribution, not by the amount of time committed. However, key personnel are expected to commit a substantial amount of time to the program.

Question 31:

On the DARPA F6 website both GEO and LEO satellites are mentioned as suitable for fractionation. Can we propose a GEO-based application to the F6 program solicitation?

Answer 31:

Fractionation is an orbit-independent architectural construct, and much of the technology development solicited in this BAA is likewise orbit-agnostic. The DARPA demo will be a LEO demo, however.

Question 32:

If ITAR applies, will the cost of a technical assistance agreement for international participation be a valid reimbursable cost for the proposal?

Answer 32:

Offerors should refer to the FAR and DFARS to determine whether a particular cost is an allowable one based on the type of their contract award. DARPA may, at its discretion, allow pre-contract authorization to incur allocable and allowable costs.

Question 33:

Have the designations of export control regulated technologies been determined? When is this anticipated? If there is an ITAR designation levied for any of the technologies how will it impact the execution of the proposed program? (Reference: Page 8: “The designation of technologies developed under this BAA with respect to export control regulations is to be determined. As a precaution, all offerors should plan, immediately upon award, to commence implementation of a technical assistance agreement (TAA) to encompass all U.S. and non-U.S. awardees under this BAA.”) Answer 33:

No designation has been made at this time.

Question 34:

On page 8 of the BAA, the phrase "especially where proprietary technical data" appears to be missing some information.

Answer 34:

The sentence in its entirety should read, "Intellectual property is a proposal review criterion (see Section V) under this BAA and offerors should structure their development accordingly, especially where proprietary technical data is included."

Question 35:

For Technical Area 3, will distribution restrictions on techniques developed on prior Government programs be permitted to be carried over to F6 designs?

Answer 35:

Assuming the question refers to distribution restrictions pertaining to intellectual property, the BAA states: “The Government desires Unlimited Rights to all deliverables under this program except clearly-identified commercial items, with their commercial availability described and substantiated in the proposal. Intellectual property is a proposal review criterion (see Section V) under this BAA and offerors should structure their development accordingly, especially where proprietary technical data [is included]. Offerors should take specific care to avoid inclusion of Restricted, Limited, or Government Purpose Rights items (technical data and non-commercial computer software) as part of their proposed solutions or explain how the inclusion of such items would provide better value to the Government in comparison to the receipt of Unlimited Rights to all deliverables.” Note that Answer 34 addresses the sentence fragment in the preceding quote.

Question 36:

The sharing of satellite technology currently is controlled by the U.S. State Department and it may be challenging for U.S. contractors to respond to technical questions and provide briefings if foreign contractors and government organizations are in attendance. Please provide additional clarification on how the ITAR requirements will be handled for this program in order for U.S. defense contractors to comply with U.S. Law. (Reference: Page 36 – Sec. VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION, B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements, 5. Export Control.)

Answer 36:

This will be handled either through a determination that the standards being developed under this BAA are not export controlled or via a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) across all program performers.

Question 37:

The second option period for Technical Area 4 is "verification and validation of the resulting architecture". Will this be implemented in software, or is there an expectation to implement it on a testbed?

Answer 37:

This is up to the offeror.

Question 38:

What is the relationship between System F6 and the Plug and Play Satellite Technologies (aka TacSat-5, aka APT or Advanced Plug-and-Play Satellite Technologies)? Does DARPA plan to involve the AFRL Advanced Plug-and-Play satellite technologies in System F6? If so, how is this to be done?

Answer 38:

Offerors should feel free to propose such technologies as they see most applicable to meeting System F6 BAA objectives. There is no formal relationship between the System F6 program and any of the efforts or organizations named in the question.

Question 39:

Does the FDK include only flight software or does it also include ground software?

Answer 39:

As the BAA states, “The FDK is a set of open source interface standards, protocols, software, behaviors, and reference implementations thereof, necessary for any party, without a contractual relationship with or assistance from any System F6 performer, to develop a clean-sheet module design that can fully participate in a fractionated cluster.”

Question 40:

Are there any advantages or restrictions on the choice of computer platform operating systems (e.g., Linux, Windows, Mac, BSD, iOS, Android)?

Answer 40:

It is up to the offeror to select a technical solution that meets the BAA’s technical and other (e.g., intellectual property) objectives.

Question 41:

Page 16, 4th Bullet states: “Estimate of software overhead resources required to host the cluster flight software on a per-module and cluster basis (processor cycles/MIPS/FLOPS/etc., link bandwidth, memory)” is required. Is there a baseline range for these resource requirements?

Answer 41:

There are no a priori constraints.

Question 42:

Can we list candidate commercial software in the proposal and substitute in equivalent commercial software after the program award?

Answer 42:

The offeror should explain in the proposal why the candidates are under consideration and any technical or programmatic (i.e., intellectual property or cost/schedule) risk associated therewith.

Question 43:

Does DARPA plan on providing consistent input data sets for validation of all VCDM tools? Is DARPA going to require the teams to share the data amongst themselves?

Answer 43:

Offerors should propose their own validation approaches without reliance on any Government-furnished information. All performers will share all data proposed for or developed in the course of this effort in the course of PI meetings and milestone deliveries, as such data will be delivered with Unlimited Rights to the Government.

Question 44:

What is meant by "embedded" commercial software (BAA Section VIII.A.I.b)? If we use commercial software as the framework and execution environment of our tool, is that considered embedded?

Answer 44:

The statement covers any commercial software that is required for the execution of the offeror’s solution during the on-orbit demonstration. It does not include commercial software utilized during the development of the offeror’s solution.

Question 45:

Does software that is being reused for the Milestone A prototype (which the Government does not have unlimited rights to) need to be listed per Section VIII.A.I.a of the BAA? The intention is that any limited use rights software in the Milestone A prototype would be replaced by the Milestone B deliverable.

Answer 45:

As the BAA states, “[t]he Government desires Unlimited Rights to all deliverables under this program except clearly-identified commercial items.”

Question 46:

Do the software resource estimates that are required for the proposal (MIPS, FLOPS, Memory, SLOC) include the ground segment?

Answer 46:

No.

Question 47:

Are there Programming Language constraints for the FDK (i.e. C, C++, FORTRAN, etc)?

Answer 47:

Offerors should feel free to propose such solutions as they see best meeting the technical and programmatic objectives of the BAA.

Question 48:

Page 5 states: “Capability to perform a defensive cluster scatter and re-gather maneuver to rapidly evade a debris-like threat; specifically, 5 minutes after a command is received from the ground, each module should be at least 10 km from where any module would have been under normal orbit operations (i.e., if no scatter maneuver had been initiated), and each pair of modules are as far apart as possible; the planning and execution of the scatter an re-gather maneuvers shall be performed without intervention or communication from ground operations.” What are the metrics/goals of importance for the re-gather maneuver (i.e. safety, timeliness, minimize delta-V, or cluster geometry configuration)? Please confirm if any precision formation or geometry constraints have to be met. Please confirm if there are any time constraints on (re)configuration. Please confirm if any cluster size constraints (>xxx number of nodes) exist.

Answer 48:

No additions or amendments to the cited BAA text will be made at this time. Offerors should detail any assumptions made or limitations on their proposed approach in their technical proposal.

Question 49:

Given the direction that individual proposals cover only one technical area in its entirety, will a proposal submitted for one technical area which highlights benefits that would be created in another technical area be accepted?

Answer 49:

Yes.

Question 50:

There are architectures and technologies that differ from the BAA with respect to allocating layers of the OSI Reference Model, how firm does DARPA consider the allocation of Layers 1-2 to Technical Area 2 and Layers 3-7 to Technical Area 3?

Answer 50:

Offerors are expected to reference the OSI model in their proposals. Cross-layering that spills into other technical areas may be proposed, but the benefits should be clearly articulated.

Question 51:

For Technical Areas 2 and 3, will results and products from Milestone A be distributed to other competitors to support continued efforts toward Milestone B?—and similarly will Milestone B results and products be distributed/shared for progress toward Milestone C?

Answer 51:

Yes, all deliverables at all major and interim milestones will be shared in the course of the program-wide PI meetings.

Question 52:

With a working open source protocol working in space right now (IRIS), can DARPA please clarify the need to create a new one (Technical Area 3)?

Answer 52:

Offerors are free to propose any such solution—existing or novel—as they see best meeting the objectives of the BAA.

Question 53:

In Technical Area 3, the bidder is asked to estimate the time to re-allocate all applications on a node to another node on the cluster-network. In calculating this estimate, what assumptions are valid to make on the bandwidth and delay characteristics of layers 1 & 2?

Answer 53:

The BAA intentionally leaves this question open to the offeror. Proposers should document the assumptions as part of their analysis.

Question 54:

For Technical Area 3, the BAA indicates that the bidder should include both a Software Development Plan and a Software Verification and Validation Plan in the Technical Approach Section of the proposal. Are these items counted toward the 25-page page limit for that section?

Answer 54:

Yes. Proposers should describe their approach for software development and verification and validation.

Question 55:

For Technical Area 3, is the layer 3 packet prioritization anticipated to reside solely in the IA software or will medium access control per-packet differentiation be available, coordinated between both Technical Area 2 and Technical Area 3?

Answer 55:

Offerors are free to describe any system-wide benefits or ramifications for other technical areas that accrue from their proposed approach and are encouraged to respond with any solution that provides an overall benefit to the system. However, offerors choosing to respond to multiple technical areas should submit separate proposals to each technical area.

Question 56:

For Technical Area 3, is it anticipated that every transceiver operating in F6 would be rated to the highest level security? Is the multi-level security anticipated per-transceiver as well as per application?

Answer 56:

The assumption is that transceivers may operate at different levels. MLS per transceiver/application is a design decision the performer should make.

Question 57:

The first option period for Technical Area 4 is the "detailed design and implementation of the cluster flight architecture". Will it be implemented in simulation, ground studies, or some other platform?

Answer 57:

The BAA intentionally leaves this question open to the offeror.

Question 58:

Can we submit a black box solution in any of the technical areas with a well defined interface specification? That is, contain the algorithm and/or process as a closed function?

Answer 58:

The BAA clearly articulates the “open source” goals of the program.

Question 59:

For cluster safety properties, please confirm if any formal Verification & Validation of safety properties (under failure, etc. contexts) are required [apart from validation in simulation]. (Reference: Safety Management – Verification & Validation.)

Answer 59:

The BAA does not mandate any specific verification and validation technique. Offerors are expected to propose innovative—yet practical, given the short timeline to flight—approaches that can lead to a reasonable level of assurance that safety-critical functions will be maintained in the course of the demonstration mission.

Question 60:

For the purpose of establishing an upper limit on latency, would you please define the term “real time” as used in the BAA?

Answer 60:

The BAA leaves this question open to the offeror. Proposals should include an explanation of any limitations or assumptions made.

Question 61:

How many different and distinct F6 clusters might be in orbit at one time and will individual modules shift membership between clusters at different points in time?

Answer 61:

The F6 demonstrations describe only a single cluster. The addition and removal of a module from the cluster is part of the on-orbit demonstration.

Question 62:

What kinds of data rates are expected: 1) On board each satellite (aka module)? 2) From satellite-to-satellite? 3) From satellite to ground?

Answer 63:

There are no specific data rates expected at the present, but offerors should consider a range of data rates in their analysis and describe any assumptions or limitations of their proposed approach.

Question 64:

Is the desire to leverage commercial standards or to develop/employ more robust waveforms?

Answer 64:

There are no specific desires or preferences for any specific waveform standards.

Question 65:

Does DARPA have a preference between FPGA-based architectures vs. ASIC-based designs? Is the roadmap for DARPA to head toward an ASIC-based design?

Answer 65:

The specific technical approach is up to each offeror.

Question 66:

Are the cross-links expected to provide power between satellite fractions?

Answer 66:

There is no BAA objective for power sharing between satellites.

Question 67:

Is there a need to support isochronous communications between fractions such as for sensor fusion processing within the satellite constellation vs. on the ground?

Answer 67:

There is no such objective in the BAA.

Question 68:

What is DARPA's preference for cross-link spectral band?

Answer 68:

There are no preferences, but offerors should provide rationale for their choice of frequency and bandwidth, substantiation for why a corresponding spectrum allocation is feasible and the risks associated therewith, along with a draft form DD1494.

Question 69:

Page 14, states: “Algorithm development should be performed over a parametric range of cluster radii and geometries to enable subsequent trades with the wireless cross-link architecture.” Page 16, Table 6 states: “inter module distance [100 m to 100 km].” Is it correct to assume that the cluster radii is defined using the two farthest nodes within the cluster?

Answer 69:

Cluster radii may be taken to be synonymous with the term “inter-module distance.”

Question 70:

Page 16, Table 6 states: “cluster configuration.” How is this related to the “cluster geometry?” Is it correct to assume these are referencing the same parameter/terminology?

Answer 70:

Yes.

Question 71:

Page 16, Table 6 states: “Worst-case collision probability for any single mode failure.” What is meant by single “mode” failure? Is it correct to assume that “mode” should be “node”?

Answer 71:

No. A single mode failure is the failure of an individual component or software fault that has collision implications (e.g., is essential to the ability of a module to sense or control its state/attitude/position).

Question 72:

Should inter-module RFI be considered in cluster geometry/configuration?

Answer 72:

Proposers should consider all aspects of the potential interference environments.

Question 73:

Does the 100 m – 100 km inter-module spacing apply at all times including scatter and re-gather operations?

Answer 73:

The 100m – 100km inter-module spacing is not a requirement. It is a parameter to enable tradeoffs between the wireless communications and cluster flight designs. There are no specific requirements or constraints for maximum inter-module spacing after scatter beyond what is elaborated in the on-orbit demonstration objectives in the BAA.

Question 74:

With regard to the statement that communications must be maintained during the defensive scatter: Is there a constraint on the maximum range allowed during the re-gather to ensure communication between modules is maintained or is this unconstrained for the contractor’s design? (Reference: Page 10 – Sec. I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION, Technical Area Two: Wireless Inter-Module Communications.)

Answer 74:

At present, there are no specific requirements or constraints for maximum inter-module spacing after scatter beyond what is elaborated in the on-orbit demonstration objectives in the BAA.

Question 75:

“Table 5: Specific Deliverables for Technical Area Four” identifies a parametric performance model and flight behavior/rules input to FDK. Are these anticipated to be in the form of a software tool for the parametric performance model and algorithm descriptions for the input to the FDK? If not, what form is desired for these deliveries? (Reference: Page 15 – Sec. I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION, Technical Area Four: Cluster Flight.)

Answer 75:

As stated in the BAA, “The parametric model referenced above as a Milestone A deliverable should be delivered in tabular form with reasonable resolution” and should span the parameter space as enumerated in each technical area.

Question 76:

The BAA states that there is no requirement for precision relative station-keeping. The BAA also asks for “relative navigation sensor accuracy requirements for position and accuracy.” Please confirm if there is any desire for the parametric performance model to have the ability to model precision formation flying or geometry constraints. (Reference: Page 16 – Sec. I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION, Technical Area Four: Cluster Flight.)

Answer 76:

As the BAA points out, there is “no requirement for precision relative station-keeping such as might be needed for coherent sensing or sparse aperture synthesis.” The degree of accuracy of the relative station-keeping is up to each offeror and should be traded accordingly with other parameters such as collision probability, propellant efficiency, etc. The parametric model should specify the resultant accuracy.

Question 77:

Have you identified details that you would like included in the Technical Approach regarding the Software Development Plan and the Software Verification & Validation Plan? (Reference: Page 16 – Sec. I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION, Technical Area Four: Cluster Flight.)

Answer 77:

The BAA intentionally leaves this question open to each offeror.

Question 78:

How will interdependencies be managed when a company wins in one technical area and another company wins in a separate technical area? How will the resulting F6 system be assembled from these different parts spread over different players?

Answer 78:

There are two elements. The first and most significant element is Government Team input. The Government Team will provide feedback and be responsible for coordination of both the course of performance and the major milestones. The second element is the self-governing nature of the program-wide PI meetings where good ideas tend to be persuasive and the good ideas tend to win. All milestone reviews will be conducted in the form of principal investigator (PI) meetings—occurring bi-monthly—at which all performers across the various technical areas will be present. This should be a significant contributor for the harmonization of the different technical areas.

Question 79:

What are the assumptions that we can make about the capabilities of the spacecraft in terms of actuator authority (e.g., thruster locations), vehicle communication (e.g., vehicle to vehicle), spacecraft sensor (e.g., star tracker), and payload constraints?

Answer 79:

This is up to the offeror to determine.

Question 80:

During the on-orbit demonstration of the multi-module space system, is the communications link for commanding and telemetry of the modules planned to be direct from the ground to the modules or through BGAN from the 3-satellite I-4 constellation of GEO satellites?

Answer 80:

Each F6 satellite module may have access to multiple space-to-ground links including a direct space-to-ground link for backup telemetry and commanding, a persistent Inmarsat link, and a shared high-speed space-to-ground link. Telemetry, command, and mission data may be routed through any of these links.

Question 81:

Are there any COTS software preferences or restrictions?

Answer 81:

This question is clearly and unequivocally addressed at several points in the BAA.

Question 82:

Are there any preferences or restrictions with regards to module component technologies?

Answer 82:

No. There are no restrictions or preferences regarding module component technologies. Offerors should explain design decisions.

Question 83:

Please clarify what is meant by “interference resistance.”

Answer 83:

Interference resistance applies to both intentional and unintentional interference. The interference environment should be part of the design trades.

Question 84:

What will be the requirements (if any) on authentication mechanisms and policies, especially with regard to rekeying and revocations?

Answer 84:

There are no specific technical requirements for authentication at this time; however, all proposals should address these issues.

Question 85:

What level of Security Penetration Testing (Appendix A) is required?

Answer 85:

As needed to provide a "high" level of assurance in the expected operation of the system.

Question 86:

Can one technical area place requirements on another (e.g., can Technical Area 3 specify that a Technical Area 2 solution support network coding for within cluster communication)?

Answer 86:

In the course of proposal development, offerors should document any assumption and limitations of their proposed technical solution.

Question 87:

Is the design tool for adaptable systems geared towards creating and establishing entire clusters from scratch with a single owner/operator or is it geared towards helping an independent cluster member design a module that works well with a pre-existing cluster? What is the point of view of the user of the design tool suite?

Answer 87:

This is intentionally left unspecified in the BAA.

Question 88:

What is the envisioned level of hardware that will be required to run the analysis suite for Technical Area 1? Is running on a single workstation more or less desirable than utilizing (ground-based) cluster computing?

Answer 88:

Simplicity and inexpensiveness of the design tools will contribute to its widespread usability and therefore viewed favorably.

Question 89:

For Technical Area 1, is there any info about potential mission scenarios that can be used to test the candidate designs against? If not, will there be feedback if the customer thinks we are missing an important scenario along the way?

Answer 89:

A toolset that addresses a wider range of mission scenarios will be more capable and thus usable than a toolset with limited mission scenarios. Offerors should propose an appropriate set of reviewable milestones which are necessary to obtain sufficient Government input and feedback.

Question 90:

Related to Technical Area 1, design tools are generally used to support a given process. Should offerors try to be process agnostic or cite a process, or set of processes, they will explicitly try to support (e.g., set-based engineering, agile/iterative development, crowdsourcing, etc.)?

Answer 90:

This is intentionally unspecified in the BAA. Proposers are free to propose toolsets that support one or multiple design processes.

Question 91:

Is the envisioned protocol stack restricted to use any specific protocols, e.g., IP, TCP, UDP and SCTP, or is the offeror free to select and utilize any standard protocols?

Answer 91:

There are no restrictions in the BAA. Any design decisions should, however, be appropriately justified in the proposal.

Question 92:

Since the satellite-to-ground link part of the F6 program was already awarded to Inmarsat, is a PHY/MAC concept outside of the scope of this BAA?

Answer 92:

The PHY/MAC concept for the wireless cross-links whose design is solicited in the BAA need not be the same as for the Inmarsat SB-SAT link.

Question 93:

Is “cross-link signal detection range” meant to convey that longer ranges for detecting the cross-link signal is a metric (longer the range the better) or is there an interest in detecting range/range rate from the crosslink signal?

Answer 93:

The detection range is the range at which a signal can be detected. There is no specific BAA objective for detecting range/range rate from the cross-link signal.

Question 94:

Should the wireless inter-module communications be capable of communicating with systems outside of the F6 system?

Answer 94:

No.

Question 95:

We think that to improve network performance it will be useful to employ a mobile ad hoc network (MANET) routing layer beneath the IP routing function envisioned for Technical Area 3. This is sometimes considered a "link-layer" network and sometimes considered a "Layer 3a" network. We think it is proper to consider this function as part of F6 Technical Area 2, "Wireless Inter-module Communications." Is this interpretation acceptable?

Answer 95:

Offerors should justify any assumptions made, may address the impact of one technical area on another, and may submit proposals to more than one technical area.

Question 96:

What sort of security interactions will there be between Technical Area 2 and Technical Area 3 with regards to issues like layer 2 encryption (hardware or otherwise)?

Answer 96:

Specific security interactions between Layers 1 and Layers 2, and Layers 3-7 are neither restricted nor endorsed. Information assurance functions may be and will likely need to be distributed across a variety of layers.

Question 97:

Will any consideration be given to proposals during their evaluation for the information architecture's ability to accommodate anticipated future F6 system needs such as wireless transfer of energy, forces, and moments?

Answer 97:

No.

Question 98:

Is it anticipated that a routing solution could forward or relay a higher level multi-level security message than is available on that forwarding node?

Answer 98:

It is not required, but it is desirable. Such a system would have to be designed to prevent access to/inspection of information at a higher level than it is authorized. Due to policy constraints, this means the node would be required to relay/forward appropriately encrypted messages it cannot decrypt.

Question 99:

Is it anticipated that the Information Architecture software have access to detailed link information per packet, for example detailed link SNR, SIR, BER, or details of a corrupted packet received or even notification that it has been dropped at the receive side of the link?

Answer 99:

Protocol development is up to the performer. The performer should determine and articulate which measurements are needed.

Question 100:

Can the architecture group the spacecraft devices in a logical fashion to provide networking of spacecraft functions rather than spacecraft devices?

Answer 100:

The information architecture should enable spacecraft devices to be uniquely addressable. There are no specific restrictions or preferences on grouping spacecraft devices.

Question 101:

There appears to be some ambiguity in the objectives related to MLS. Is a formal PL5 approach required? Or is a prototype that demonstrates probably-correct architecture, interfaces, and sample implementations, combined with a roadmap for how the prototype could be evolved into a certified MLS system (including the possible requirement for an almost complete rewrite to satisfy PL5 process requirements), the desired approach?

Answer 101:

No ambiguity is intended. The BAA clearly states, “The System F6 program goal is to realize a system which incorporates the principal controls associated with an accreditable MLS systems, but without submitting the architecture to a formal certification and accreditation (C&A) process as an MLS system.” Thus a complete implementation of the controls in BAA Appendix A is required. However, the program timeline is not consistent with an external accreditation of the resultant design.

Question 102:

The BAA seems to be focusing on fault management at Layers 3 through 5. May proposals address fault management at the application layer (Layer 7) to provide fault detection and decision making across modules or spacecraft within the cluster?

Answer 102:

Fault management may be distributed across layers 3-7 in Technical Area 3. There are no restrictions or preferences on specific implementations.

Question 103:

Will spacecraft ingress (adding a spacecraft to the cluster) be autonomous, or is that something that could be commanded?

Answer 103:

The BAA states a preference for semi-autonomous operations. Offerors should justify and substantiate any design decisions to include or exclude autonomy, and discuss any limitations to their approach.

Question 104:

Are there relative velocity limits for cluster spaceflight? Or, is any relative motion acceptable, provided that it does not violate the spacecraft separations limits?

Answer 104:

There are no specific relative velocity limits. Safety of flight and collision considerations should be included in any cluster design.

Question 105:

Are there times where it is permissible for the spacecraft within the cluster to go outside of the relative separation limits? Or, does the integrity of the cluster need to remain intact for the entirety of the mission?

Answer 105:

The BAA contains separation ranges, not limits. The offeror should analyze system performance over those ranges. It is not a requirement that the system must work over those ranges, nor is the motion required to be confined to those ranges.

Question 106:

Is the cluster flight code responsible for navigation state estimation, ephemeris propagation, or data synchronization?

Answer 106:

Cluster flight software is responsible for all processing as required to fulfill the demonstration objectives outlined in the BAA and specifically in Technical Area 4. Specific software functions are dependent on the overall cluster flight architecture and should be determined by the offeror.

Question 107:

Is the proximity sensor package part of Technical Area 4?

Answer 107:

There is no specific BAA objective that includes or excludes a particular sensor suite. Offerors should justify any design decisions in their proposal.

Question 108:

What would drive the need to re-gather after a scatter maneuver? Is the idea just to get the vehicles back into wireless range?

Answer 108:

The goal of the re-gather is to return to nominal pre-scatter cluster operation.

Question 109:

Will some or all PI meetings be open to parties other than the Government team and the performers? We do not see a way to have substantive discussions in such a public forum without appropriate IP protection amongst all the parties. (We note that this is a common problem in standards body interactions.)

Answer 109:

Attendance at PI meetings will be at the Government’s discretion. Since all deliverables will be with Unlimited Rights to the Government, this should not pose an IP protection issue as no proprietary information should be included in any program artifact or deliverable.

Question 110:

Is there an assumption that we should consider on how impulsive the required velocity would be delivered by each module? For example, if it is impulsive, the ΔV would be greater than required if the time duration of a burn is required to fit within the 5 min.

Answer 110:

This is up to the offeror to determine.