XS-1_Q A_(12-12-13).pdf

DARPA-BAA-14-01

Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1)

Questions and Answers

12 December 2013

Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) BAA-14-01 Questions & Answers

IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ANSWERS PROVIDED

HEREIN AND THE BAA, THE BAA SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE

Q1. I have developed a concept related to XS-1. Is DARPA willing to discuss it and/or provide feedback?

A1. No, there will be no discussion or feedback on such concepts while the XS-1 BAA-14-01 is open. Only complete proposals, consistent with the objectives detailed in the BAA, will be evaluated. The XS-1 BAA can be found at:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-BAA-14-01/listing.html

Q2. The BAA requires a .pptx file containing, among other data, a Cost Summary chart in a prescribed format, broken down by labor hours, overhead, G&A, etc., which is to be included on the CD-ROM that is submitted with the proposal. If the proposer intends to submit an "845 Other Transactions Without Cost Sharing" proposal where the cost proposal does not require usual cost and pricing data (p. 29, paragraph 2), but only milestone payment information, may the proposer submit the Cost Summary chart as a collection of appropriate Phase I, II, and III milestone payments?

A2. Yes, the Cost Summary chart can be a collection of appropriate Phase I, II, and III milestone payments. The intent of the Cost Summary chart is to easily determine funding profiles, broken out by key technical areas, to successfully complete the program. It should be noted, however, that the Phase I cost proposal itself must still include the cost breakout of how the value was derived (including labor hours, rates, materials, etc.) as described in the cost proposal instructions (pgs. 27-29). The instructions also require both a FAR-based cost proposal and OT proposal for those offerors who propose a cost share.

Q3. Regarding Phase II/III notional costs, is it acceptable to provide only total costs by year for Phase II/III in the “Cost Summary” slide of the Executive Summary Brief?

A3. Since Phase II/III costs are notional, it is acceptable to provide the Phase II and III costs in the Cost Summary slide of the Executive Summary Brief as yearly totals per Phase.

Q4. If a contractor proposes both a System Design task and a Critical Risk Reduction task, do the Technical and Management Proposal page limitations (60 pages for sections II

& III) apply to both System Design Tasks and Critical Risk Reduction Tasks? Or is there a separate 60 page proposal for each category of tasks?

A4. Separate, stand-alone technical proposals are required if a contractor proposes both a

System Design task and a Critical Risk Reduction task. Note that optional additional

System Design funding, if sought, must be addressed as part of the corresponding system design proposal. Page limits for technical proposal(s) must be adhered to per the BAA instructions.

Q5. How much Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) support is available to enable completion of the tasks listed?

A5. At this point, no GFE has been identified as available. For proposal purposes it is acceptable to assume GFE may be available as long as such assumptions are stated, and associated risks are identified and mitigated. Note that any funds required for GFE will proportionally reduce the funds available to the performer.

Q6. Is the training of personnel or a formal training program considered risk reduction?

A6. Training of personnel is expected and should not be considered a standalone task for critical risk reduction. Critical Risk Reduction tasks are to be in furtherance of a viable

XS-1 system design.

Q7. If information to be used during Phase I is to be obtained from NASA under an unfunded Space Act Agreement, does the act have to be in place when the proposal is submitted?

A7. The proposal should discuss all team members and how offerors will accomplish the proposed work. Proposals in which offeror teams include FFRDCs or Government entities, such as NASA, will be assessed with respect to the eligibility requirements described in subsection A.2 of page 17 of the BAA.

Q8. DARPA explained several times during the Proposers’ Day that proposers were supposed to propose to the entire set of goals without recommending changes. Please explain the purpose of the last sentence on page 5 that says, “Performers are expected to prioritize the goals in service of both the overall program vision and design-to-cost requirements and identify suggested changes for Phases II and III.”

A8. Opportunities to suggest changes for Phases II and III will only be available for Phase I performers. Selection for Phase I System Design tasks will require proposed designs capable of meeting the technical and cost goals as stated in DARPA BAA-14-01. The purpose of the identified sentence in the BAA is to allow proposers the opportunity to identify key Phase I trades that will support both proposed design-to-cost and risk reduction objectives.

Q9. On page 6, the BAA describes two types of tasks: 1) System Design and 2) Critical

Risk Reduction and indicates that proposers may propose against one, the other, or both. If we decide to propose both a System Design task and Critical Risk Reduction task(s), are we expected to submit two separate proposals or a single proposal?

A9. See answer A4.

Q10. On page 9, the BAA states that, “Proposers seeking to obtain the $1M of optional system design funding in Phase I must indicate what tasks would be performed with this funding, how these tasks would contribute additional depth and/or breadth to the baseline

Phase I deliverables, and how these tasks would enhance the outcome of subsequent phases.” Since the BAA does not discuss separate proposals for both the System Design task (approx. value $3M) and Critical Risk Reduction task(s) (up to $1M) in the BAA, we are concerned that there will be insufficient space within the page limits to adequately describe both sets of tasks. Will DARPA consider increasing the proposal page limit if proposers are submitting a proposal that includes both the System Design task and Critical

Risk Reduction task(s)?

A10. See answer A4.

Q11. On pages 8 and 11, the BAA states that it will provide "…updated proposal guidance, for the Phase II/III proposals, at the end of month nine.” This appears to be after delivery of the Technology Maturation Plan, which includes updated estimates of the Phase

II/III costs. Since the updated Phase II/III guidance may significantly affect our estimate of the Phase II/III program costs, would DARPA consider providing the updated proposal guidance prior to delivery of the Technology Maturation Plan?

A11. No, the Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) will be expected prior to the issuance of updated proposal guidance. DARPA will evaluate the submitted proposals for Phase II, not the TMPs. Performers will not be penalized if updated proposal guidance implies changes to the TMP or estimated Phase II/III program costs.

Q12. On page 23, in the description of the required information in Section I

(Administrative), the BAA indicates that there is {no page limit} or {Not included in page count} for each section with the exception of Section B, “Official Transmittal Letter.” Is there a page limit for the “Official Transmittal Letter”?

A12. There is no page limit for the Official Transmittal Letter, nor will it count against any page limits. Please note that as per page 22 of the BAA, only Volume I, Section II and

Volume I, Section III have prescribed page limits.

Q13. It does not appear that there is a requirement for a formal past performance section or volume. The only discussion of “past performance” in the “Proposal Format” section that starts on page 22 is on page 26, paragraph E, which states that proposers are to discuss

“…proposer's previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas” in

Volume I, Section 3. However, the third priority evaluation criteria are “Proposer’s

Capabilities and/or Related Experience.” Based on the importance of “past performance” in related research areas in the evaluation criteria, shouldn’t there be a formal past performance section that allows proposers to thoroughly describe “previous accomplishments and work in closely related research areas”?

A13. The procedures listed at FAR 35.016 and within the BAA are utilized to complete the evaluation, including “Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience”. The proposal format should conform to the specifications in the BAA. No provision will be made for a separate “Past Performance” section. Proposers are reminded that they may cite related reports or other publications, and provide copies of such documents as per the BAA.

Q14. On page 26, in paragraph H, the BAA asks for summary of financial information by task, by year, by teammate. That information is essentially duplicated in Volume II, the

Cost volume, as described in the last paragraph on page 28. Can proposers simply refer the evaluator to the appropriate section in Volume II?

A14. No, the proposer must summarize the cost data in the technical proposal.

Q15. In the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 29, the BAA asks for

“Supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates in B. above.” It is not clear what section of the BAA that is being referred to when the BAA states “…in B. above.”

A15. It refers to b. Volume II, Cost Proposal

Q16. Please confirm that the second sentence in the second full paragraph on page 29 that says “Proposers interested in receiving an OTA and where cost share is required are asked to submit proposal responses that accommodate both options” means that a Nontraditional

Contractor Prime that qualifies to submit an OTA type cost volume without the necessity of a cost share is not required to submit a FAR type cost volume in addition to the OTA type cost volume. Additionally, if that Nontraditional Contractor Prime elects to include a cost share voluntarily, would they still not be required to submit the additional full FAR type cost volume?

A16. That is correct. A non-traditional contractor that submits an OTA-type cost volume does not have to submit a FAR-type cost volume. However, note that the non-traditional contractor must still submit sufficient cost and pricing data to justify the proposed costs.

Q17. On page 29 (first full paragraph), the BAA states that “Cost or pricing data” are not required if the proposer proposes an award instrument other than a procurement contract

(e.g., other transaction).” Will DARPA clarify what detailed financial information they are expecting from a Nontraditional Contractor that is submitting an OTA based proposal?

A17. DARPA is expecting sufficient cost and pricing data to justify the proposed costs, as stated in cost proposal instructions (pgs. 27-29). The term "cost or pricing data" is defined in the FAR, Part 2.

Q18. On page 32, in paragraph (d), Cost Realism, the BAA states that proposers “will leverage all available relevant prior research in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding.” Since this is part of the evaluation criteria, will there be a proposal library? If so, when will it be available to all proposers?

A18. Material relevant to the XS-1 program is available in the XS-1 Bidders’ Library.

The requirements for requesting access are posted to the Federal Business Opportunities

(FedBizOpps) web page corresponding to the BAA:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-BAA-14-01/listing.html

Additionally, proposers are both free, and encouraged, to seek relevant prior research in open literature.

Q19. On page 23 in paragraph D, the BAA shows a list of “Additional front matter” that includes items like lists and acronyms. Please confirm that a “Compliance Matrix” that shows the “Content and Form of Application Submission” (page 19, section IV, paragraph

B) correlated to the “Evaluation Criteria” (page 31, section V, paragraph A) would be accepted as “Additional front mater” and not counted against the page count.

A19. Yes, it is acceptable to include such a “Compliance Matrix” as part of Volume I, Section

I.D. As noted in the BAA, only Volume I, Section II and Volume I, Section III have associated page count limits. Therefore, if such a “Compliance Matrix” is not a part of

Volume I, Section II or Volume I, Section III, it will not be subject to page count limitations.

Q20. On page 24 (paragraph F) and on page 33 (paragraph VI, B, 2), the BAA addresses

Human Subjects Research. We do not believe that these requirements apply to risk reduction ground demos or experiments which would involve personnel simulating servicing or maintenance events on full scale ground test articles or components. Please confirm that we are not required to submit the discussed documentation for ground experiments and demos which involves personnel simulating servicing or maintenance activities.

A20. Based on the top level description provided in the question, it does not appear to be human subjects research (HSR); however, HSR declarations must be made by offerors based on the proposed detailed statement of work. As noted in the BAA, research selected for funding involving human subjects, to include use of human biological specimens and human data, must comply with the federal regulations for human subjects protection. Further, research involving human subjects that is conducted or supported by the DoD must comply with 32 CFR 219, Protection of Human Subjects (and DoD

Instruction 3216.02, Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in

DoD-Supported Research ( http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321602p.pdf ).

Q21. It appears on page 26, in paragraph G, that proposers are required to include

“Formal Teaming Agreements which are required to execute this program” in Section III or Volume I. Will copies of those teaming agreements count against the page count, or is the intent of this section simply for proposers to summarize the status of any “Formal

Teaming Agreements”?

A21. The formal teaming agreements will not be counted against the page limit. The intent of this section is to summarize the status of any “Formal Teaming Agreements”. The actual teaming agreement can be referenced in Section III, and posted as an appendix.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321602p.pdf

Q22. Is there a rule of thumb for determining “significant” participation by a “Non-

Traditional Defense Contractor” in an 845 Agreement? Is it expected to be 51% (a

Majority), 25% of dollar value, or can it be considered to be "strong enabling technology" and thus justify a smaller (say 10%) level of participation? Hypothetically, suppose a small business has a sensor/actuator embedded into structure and that would dramatically reduce tip weight compared to more traditional hydraulic actuators. If this sensor/actuator is baselined into a concept study but is only 5-10% of the larger concept study, would that qualify as “significant”? If not, can the “Non-Traditional Defense

Contractor’s” participation be subject to negotiation with DARPA?

A22. The OT Guide ( http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/otguide.doc ) defines the use of a non-traditional defense contractor. The statute requires a determination by the proper authority to issue an Other Transaction for prototype, to include the use of such authority.

Q23. Trade studies are listed as part of the proposal requirements for Phase I work. Will a ground timeline or a simulation study be suitable to meet this requirement, or is DARPA looking for a physical demonstration to as compliance with the BAA requirement for

"Clean Pad Operations"?

A23. Both trade studies and actual physical demonstrations are acceptable to DARPA for compliance with the BAA requirement for “Clean Pad Operations.”

Q24. “Clean Pad Operations” is a difficult concept to quantify absent DARPA guidance.

The DC-X used a very simple launch pad operation, so, is that the goal for XS-1, i.e. to use simple surface-level GSE, augmented by additional portable/transportable/temporary structures, or is the goal to operate in something more like a pure aircraft/airline mode, where the vehicle is fully self-sustaining and only consumables and shore power are required during turnaround?

A24. The intent of “Clean Pad Operations” is to enable XS-1 to operate with minimal program-specific infrastructure (facilities and equipment), as well as flexibly flying from multiple launch locations. It is incumbent on the proposer to determine the best solution for their proposal.

Q25. Rocket exhaust can be damaging to concrete surfaces. Will restoration of these surfaces (either immediately or eventually) be considered part of the operations cost for the

XS-1, or may that be ignored for the purposes of calculating overall XS-1 operational costs?

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/otguide.doc

A25. Concrete restoration need not be specifically considered as part of XS-1’s operational costs. Just as conventional aircraft are operated from runways capable of accommodating their weight and ground pressure “footprints”, XS-1 is expected to operate from surfaces appropriate for the system.

Q26. The BAA cites a performance/cost goal of “3,000-5,000 lbs. to LEO for $5 Million”.

Is there a similar goal for first stage flights to low Mach? If not, how much detail do we need to provide in our proposal for the expendable upper stage cost/performance figures?

A26. There is not a specific cost goal for flights that do not result in launch of a payload to orbit. However, this cost is expected to be lower than the cost for a payload launch to

LEO. Expendable upper stage cost and performance estimates need to be based on credible and reasonable assumptions.

Q27. Does DARPA consider vertical take-off and landing rocket base propulsion systems to have aircraft-like operations?

A27. DARPA considers the concept of “aircraft-like operations” to be independent of takeoff and landing modes. Aircraft-like operations, as indicated in the BAA, means a minimum of specialized equipment, labor, component replacement and refurbishment, extensive inspection after every mission, and any other factor which can inflate the cost and time required to launch, recover, and reconstitute the system for the next mission.

Q28. Do the 10 flights in 10 days have to originate from the same geographically located pad?

A28. No, there is no requirement for the ten flights in ten days to originate from the same pad.

Q29. Does “aircraft-like operation” imply the requirement to efficiently conduct ferry operations of the lower stage?

A29. No, although efficient ferry operations may be used during the flight test campaign demonstrating 10 flights in 10 days. See A28 for more information.

Q30. Does “aircraft-like operation” imply the requirement to operate on readily available fuel/propellant?

A30. New or novel propellants are acceptable providing they can support the DARPA objective of 10 flights in 10 days, and the proposer can justify any risk associated with developing such propellants and rocket engines.

Q31. Section IV (B)(3), page 22 of the BAA states, "It is suggested that Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based." Would it be acceptable to submit proprietary reports and/or research notes as part of the technical bibliography?

A31. If proprietary reports and/or research notes inform the proposal, it is recommended that they be included as part of the technical bibliography. Proposers are also reminded, as stated in the BAA on page 22, “Electronic copies of all unpublished papers and notes cited must be included within a subdirectory of the submitted CDs/DVDs. When not otherwise prohibited by copyright restrictions, electronic copies of cited publications that are fifty (50) pages or fewer should also be provided within a subdirectory of the submitted CDs/DVDs.”

Q32. Section IV (B)(3), page 22 of the BAA states, "An executive summary brief in

PowerPoint format that reflects the content and claims in the proposal shall be provided on the two submitted CD/DVDs, as well as in the four hard copies of the proposal." Should the executive summary brief in PowerPoint format be provided in the original hard copy of the proposal as well? Where in the hard copies of the proposal should the 3-page executive summary brief be placed and does it count against the page count of that section?

A32. The executive summary brief will be an independent document, one slide per page, separate from Volume I and Volume II. It is not part of the page count for either of the volumes.

Q33. Section IV (B)(3)(a)(Section I)(D), page 23 of the BAA states, "{Not included in page count} Additional front matter, such as List of Figures, List of Acronyms, etc. if desired."

Would it be acceptable to submit a Cross Reference Matrix as an evaluation aid as part of the front matter subsection (Volume I, Section I.D) and, if so, would it also be not included in page count?

A33. Yes, it is acceptable to include such a “Cross Reference Matrix” as part of Volume I, Section I.D. As noted in the BAA, only Volume I, Section II and Volume I, Section III have associated page count limits. Therefore, if such a “Cross Reference Matrix” is not included by the contractor as part of Volume I, Section II or Volume I, Section III, it will not be subject to page count limitations.

Q34. Section IV (B)(3)(a)(Section II)(C), page 25 states, "Technical rationale, technical approach, and constructive plan for the accomplishment of technical goals in support of innovative claims and deliverable production." Does the term "constructive plan" mean the proposer's plans for system production and build specifically, or is "constructive" simply an adjective of our Phase I plans?

A34. In the context cited, the word “constructive” is not meant to specifically imply physical fabrication. It is an adjective.

Q35. Section VI (B)(5), page 35 of the BAA states, "Each proposer who submits a contract proposal and includes subcontractors is required to submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 91.702(a)(1) should do so with their proposal. " Can a proposer submit an overarching Corporate Comprehensive Small Business Plan or is the required

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Contract specific?

A35. Please note the proper reference is 19.702(a)(1). If a company has a comprehensive plan, that is acceptable.

Q36. Section VI (C), page 38 of the BAA states, "A Final Report that summarizes the project and tasks will be required at the conclusion of the performance period for the award, notwithstanding the fact that the research may be continued under a follow-on vehicle." Would the final Phase I PDR chart package fulfill the Final Report requirement if it covers all of the technical scope of Phase I, or are proposers required to create a comprehensive, Word-based report?

A36. A final comprehensive report that summarizes the project and tasks will be required.

There is no requirement that a specific software package be used to create the report.

Q37. Will DARPA make the briefing given by Barry Hellman on Government launch ranges and facilities available as indicated during the Proposer's Day?

A37. This material is currently available in the XS-1 Bidders’ Library. The requirements for requesting access are posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web page corresponding to the BAA: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/DARPA-

BAA-14-01/listing.html

Q38. Must bidders have all the key subcontractors in place for the initial proposal? On a program this challenging, it is important to assess and trade the capabilities of potential key suppliers after the design has matured sufficiently to understand and evaluate the most important capabilities of the suppliers and their costs vs. the most critical needs of our design and program.

A38. Proposers should identify the subcontractor team required to address the objectives identified in the BAA and include cost proposal information for each subcontractor proposed.

Q39. BAA Section III Paragraph A 2 prohibits the use of FFRDCs and government entities as subcontractors unless it is clearly demonstrated that the work requested is not available from the private sector. In the case of hypersonic aerothermal analysis and anchoring data, there are few private sector companies that possess these analytic skills and the supporting data. When those companies are XS-1 competitors, is it permissible to propose a support role for FFRDCs or other government entities using a CRADA or other contractual mechanism?

A39. See answer A7.

Q40. If we select a key foreign technology because of COTS availability, price and performance advantages to accomplish the XS-1 mission requirements, will we be required to show final proof of availability from the originating foreign government as part of the

January 16, 2014 proposal submittal? If not required at the proposal date, will definitive proof of availability be required as a condition of a Phase I contract award in spring 2014, or at the mid-point or end reviews of the Phase I Preliminary Design effort, or prior to submittal of a Phase II/III proposal?

A40. The proposed technical approach will be evaluated to determine if it is “…feasible, achievable, complete and supported by a proposed technical team that has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposal tasks.” Risks regarding the readiness or availability of key technologies will be considered during the proposal evaluation. It is incumbent on the proposer to address such risks as appropriate in their proposal.

Q41. If a small business entrepreneurial company is proposing as Prime, can the

"Relevant Experience" requirements be met by the large aerospace Tier One subcontractors performing identified work packages with specific project team staffing identified?

A41. Relevant experience includes both the prime and subcontractor teams. It is up to the proposer to demonstrate that the mix of management approach and relevant experience can support the program objectives identified by DARPA.

Q42. In the Proposer's Day briefing charts there was reference to a maximum of 1/3rd additional matching if we elect to make our Phase I proposal as an OTA transaction. For matching private funding on the Phase I proposal, is the match limited to 1/3rd of the total

Phase I project budget, or can it be higher if there is commercial business case justification?

A42. The OT Guide and legislation lists the reasons to use the authority under C1.5.2 to include “at least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by the parties to the transaction other than the federal government.”

Q43. Are matching funds limited to cash investment, or will in-kind engineering and staffing contributions count towards matching funds?

A43. Please review the OT Guide C2.16.3.

Q44. Please define “tailored Preliminary Design Review (PDR)”. We need help understanding how the PDR contents are “tailored”.

A44. The Government’s intent is that PDR need not be defined per any existing Government definition. Instead, the contractor should identify the PDR agenda and contents required to support the DARPA objectives in the most cost-effective manner.

Q45. Are the results and products of the AFRL FAST (Future-responsive Access to Space

Technologies) available to bidders?

A45. See answer A37.

Q46. Could you please provide a specific citation for the Teal Group report referenced on slide 9 of Program Manager Sponable’s Program Overview briefing at Proposers’ Day?

A46. Please see Aerospace America, June 2013, pages 22 – 24.

Q47. Will the GFI relating to MERLIN engines include both Technical (specifications, including dimensions, power, fuel, etc.) and Cost information?

A47. Technical information only is provided in the Bidders’ Library. See answer A37 for access instructions.

Q48. If the Merlin engines are in their baseline, does DARPA expect the winning Phase

II/III contractor to work directly with SPACE-X to procure the Merlin engines, or will the

Merlin engines be procured by DARPA, then furnished as GFE?

A48. The contractor may propose Merlin or alternative engines. The Government has not identified any GFE for this solicitation at this time. Please see answer A5 as well.

Q49. If the Merlin engines are GFE, how would DARPA prefer contractors to account for the cost?

A49. The Government has not identified any GFE for this solicitation at this time. Any assumption of GFE in a proposal will require reasonable cost estimates to be made by the proposer. Please see answer A5 as well.

Q50. On Page 5, the BAA states that "The XS-1 program vision is to: 1) break the cycle of escalating space system launch and high satellite costs, 2) mature the technology for affordable, routine space access and global reach aircraft, and 3) deliver a residual capability to rapidly launch, recover, and reconstitute a first stage launch vehicle capable of delivering 3,000 to 5,000 lb. payloads to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at one tenth the cost of today's launch systems".

What is meant by "residual capability?" Would DARPA prefer that the XS-1 reusable 1st stage be capable of delivering payload to orbit after the Phase III program is over, or does

"residual capability" refer to technology?

A50. This could mean the XS-1 reusable 1 st stage vehicle, with minimal modifications, be capable of delivering payload to orbit after the Phase III program is concluded. However, the contractor may propose a transition plan that develops and delivers the residual capability after execution of the XS-1 program. Both approaches are acceptable.