DARPA-BAA-14-33_-_QandA_-_CODE.pdf

DARPA-BAA-14-33

Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE)

Questions and Answers 16 May 2014

CODE BAA-14-33 Questions & Answers

IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ANSWERS PROVIDED

HEREIN AND THE BAA, THE BAA SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE

Question 1 Reference: I. Overview Information, page 4

We assume, since some proposers have not yet received their copies of the classified and export controlled appendices, that the question submission period will be extended. Please confirm that the question submission period has been extended and include the new submission due date.

Answer: Questions related to ITAR and classified material may be asked until May 30. Since there is no expedient way to distribute restricted responses to all proposers, DARPA will only answer questions that do not require that level of information.

Question 2 Reference: Proposers’ Day Q&A Document, Questions 20 and 23

We assume that we will have access to the QNT radio simulation environment and it will be characterized as Government furnished equipment (GFE). Please confirm.

Answer: DARPA is reviewing the availability of the QNT radio simulation, and will make it available to the successful bidders if possible and requested. We also plan to provide demo units for the Track A performers if they wish to conduct early risk reduction testing. Although DARPA plans to use QNT radios for the demonstration, Track B proposers are encouraged to remain as waveform agnostic as possible and assume a generic IP-based mesh network which could be emulated with COTS radios or routers for demonstration purposes. This should ensure compatibility with as many Track A performers as possible and will provide better transition opportunities.

Question 3 Are the architectures, standards, and guidelines in Appendix D prescriptive of what proposed technical solutions must abide by?

Answer: No, the examples in Appendix D are not meant to be prescriptive. They only provide examples of attributes that DARPA is looking for in an open architecture.

Question 4 Section I.F.3 Track A Program Phase 2 (page 17)

Comment: BAA states that, prior to flight testing, the performers should develop or adapt a hardware-in-the-loop test environment and complete comprehensive testing.

Question: Track A developers require access to performance characteristics of the platform computing environments early in Phase 1. Can the Government specify when such access will be provided?

Answer: The Government will provide the Shadow Small Mission Computer Users and Developers Manuals upon contract award. This may require establishing a non-disclosure agreement with the OEM.

A brochure of the product can be found at the following URL:

https://rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/Products/Computing/Processing_and_Mission_Comput ers/GPC-3000.aspx

Question 5 Reference: Section I.F.I Track A Program Phase 1 (page 19)

Comment: BAA states the OS-CoDR starts 4 months after award (MAA); Phase 1 Deliverables table (page 18) states the OS-CoDR slides are due 3 MAA.

Request: Government clarify OS-CoDR schedules.

Answer: The performers will hold a series of concept design reviews (OS-CoDR) of the Operational System(s) that are responsive to the missions presented in Appendix B and classified Appendix C (Mission Definition) starting three months after award and updated at every major review. This update will be reflected in Amendment 1 to the BAA.

Question 6 Reference: Section II. Technical Details - Track A Proposals (page 33)

Comment: A. Executive Summary states the proposer should include the technical approach and innovation claims for the four focus technologies.

Request: Government to clarify if Track A proposers are to propose critical technologies that address the four focus areas and develop those technologies under Track A of Phase 1.

Answer: Track A performers are expected to provide a complete answer to the program objectives. It may be augmented at their discretion by Track B performers at the end of Phase 1, but it may be prudent to have a complete approach independent of Track B.

Question 7 Since there is a requirement for the performers to deliver a UCS-compliant ground control station and the platform for control is the Shadow, will the Government provide the UCS-compliant Vehicle Specific Module (VSM) or will each performer be required to develop and deliver one?

Answer: DARPA doesn’t anticipate the performers requiring VSM in the Command Station. The communication between the Command Station and the CODE mission computer is up to the performer and needs to be selected with bandwidth efficiency first; consider existing standards (such as STANAG 4586, UCI, or COT) second to the extent it is possible to transmit the required information within the desired bandwidth. The interface between the CODE mission computer and the air vehicle control computer will be 4586 compliant and the Interoperability Profile containing the information will be made available upon contract award. In addition, the Shadow flight manual, which describes the systems and related procedures, will be provided upon contract award so that performers can work on the health monitoring module, relieving the pilot from this duty. For the proposal, performers may assume general aviation type of information and procedures.

Question 8 In addition to the takeoff and landing phases of the flight demonstrations, will the Government provide a ground control station and operator during the flight demonstrations for the purpose of safety override such that the performer’s provided UCS-compliant ground station will not require full flight certification for Shadow control?

Answer: Yes, the standard ground control station will be able to take over flight at all times and enforce the safety of the flight. The level of flight safety compliance for the performer-provided commander station hasn’t been fully determined, but should be facilitated by the presence of the standard GCS.

Question 9 Does DARPA expect two different control stations, one legacy and one UCS conformant, procured under this contract to communicate with the air vehicle using two different waveforms?

Answer: The Track A performer(s) are expected to provide a “Command Station” that complies with UCS standards. The launch and recovery, legacy ground control station will be provided crewed and

GFE.

Question 10 Will the proposers be provided detailed sensor capabilities and performance information for the payloads already integrated into the Shadow platform?

Answer: Yes, sensor performance and ICD will be provided upon contract award, once the performer identifies which payloads are of interest.

Question 11 Page 17, paragraph 5 says, “Prior to flight testing, the performers should develop or adapt a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) test environment and complete comprehensive testing.” Proposers’ day guidance was that

HIL and flight certification would be done by an Army Shadow integration team (PM-UAS). To what extent are the performers expected to duplicate the Government’s HIL capability?

Answer: DARPA and PM-UAS are still evaluating the ability to give remote access to the Redstone Software and Hardware Integration Laboratories. Prior to flight test, the performers will be required to validate the CODE software on-site at the Government HWIL at Redstone Arsenal in support of airworthiness verifications. Earlier testing could be done in a vendor HIL, or vendors may propose to bring CODE for testing on site in HWIL at Redstone Arsenal. The Government can provide models of varying fidelity of the Shadow and interfaces with payloads and flight control computer shortly after awards.

Question 12 Will the assessment criteria described in Appendix D be used to assess the proposed Open Architecture?

Answer: All available industry standards will be used to assess how robust the proposed system's open architecture concepts/approach meets the evaluation criteria specified in Section V, A (a) of the BAA.

Question 13 Reference: IV.B.5 Proposal Format, page 31

Comment: For Track A, the page limit for Volume 1 is 38 pages.

If an offeror’s proposal includes classified attachments/appendices, do these classified pages count against Volume 1 page limits?

Answer: Yes, the 38 page limit is for all pages, classified or not.

Question 14 Please provide the complete technical and interface specifications of all GFE, such as Shadows, ground station, UMC, TTNT radios, and other communications links.

Answer: The complete specifications will be provided to the successful proposers selected for award.

Question 15 Given (a) the delay in the release of the classified mission scenarios, (b) the fact that these two scenarios serve as the Point of Departure from which quantitative benefits are to be described by the offeror for each step of the extended kill chain (Section II, Part B requirement), and (c) the overall emphasis on the missions within the CODE Program vision and BAA, we request a 30-day extension to the proposal due date to ensure that DARPA receives the best possible proposal. Alternatively, we request that DARPA provide a day-for-day extension to the proposal due date commensurate with the difference in release dates between

Answer: DARPA has decided to delay the proposal due date to Thursday, June 26, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.

Eastern Time.

Question 16 Are the GFE UAS equipped with collision avoidance equipment? If so, what is it?

Answer: No, the UAS are not equipped with collision avoidance. If the flight coordination requires tighter control than can be done through coordination (as demonstrated in HART, for example), the required sensors would be a supplementary payload.

Question 17 The Shadow UAV does not support the maritime and IADs mission. Is it DARPA’s intention that offerors scale down these two missions to utilize the Shadows for the demo, or that offerors propose alternative UAVs to support these missions and DARPA will try to provide these as GFE?

Answer: The preference would be to adapt the mission profile to be able to demonstrate on Shadow, for example by adding a payload that is better suited to the maritime and IADS mission. If the payload doesn’t fit within the Shadow and is incompatible with the BQM-167, the proposers can suggest or offer to provide another aircraft with the understanding that the alternate vehicle(s) must be mature so as to not create undue risk to the program.

Question 18 We plan to submit a DARPA-BAA-14-33 proposal for Track B. The BAA states that Track B efforts are expected to be allocated between $400,000 and $700,000 per award. The BAA has four focus areas (Single Vehicle Level Autonomy, Human System Interface, Team Level Autonomy, Open Architecture).

In Section II.B (page 36, last sentence) of the BAA it states, “Proposers are free to propose integrated capabilities that combine technologies in one or more of the technology areas listed in Part II. Section I.D.”

Our question is: If we were to propose solutions in three focus areas, would the DARPA Track B award limit be $2,100,000 (3 areas X $700,000) or would the award limit be at the $700,000 ceiling amount?

Answer: The cost figures in the BAA are only for guidance. Proposals will be evaluated based on the BAA criteria. In general, Track B efforts are envisioned as focused, highly innovative, and delivering high maturity solutions that can be easily integrated into, and significantly improve, Track A solutions.

However, in some cases, high synergies can be achieved by combining certain ideas, in which case a combined proposal, with separately priced options, may make sense.

Question 19 The BAA states the SOW and IMS should be provided to a WBS level 4. Can the cost and BOEs be provided to a WBS level 2 or 3?

Answer: As noted in the BAA, the Government strongly encourages that the proposer provide a detailed cost breakdown to include: (1) total program cost broken down by major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs, overhead charges, etc.) and further broken down by task and phase; (2) major program tasks by fiscal year; (3) an itemization of major subcontracts and equipment purchases; (4) an itemization of any information technology (IT) purchase, as defined in FAR 2.101; (5) a summary of projected funding requirements by month; and (6) the source, nature, and amount of any industry cost-sharing; and (7) identification of pricing assumptions of which may require incorporation into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Expert/s, etc.). The proposer should include their Basis of Estimate (BOE) supporting cost and pricing information in sufficient detail to substantiate the summary cost estimates and should include a description of the method used to estimate costs and supporting documentation. This level of cost information and breakdown may be considered equivalent to a minimum level three work outline.

Question 20 Are appendices included in the Technical and Management Proposal Volume's 38 page count limit for Track A?

Answer: The BAA doesn’t call for appendices. The performer may choose to group all the classified information into a separate document for ease of handling, but the pages for that document would count towards the total number of pages.

Question 21 I see that you encourage teaming on Track A proposals, but what about Track B? Do you also encourage teaming there, or are you looking to assemble a group of performers focusing on their individual technology areas?

Answer: Yes, DARPA is interested in the strongest possible proposals and, therefore, encourages teaming for both Track A and B.

Question 22 Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

Answer: This is a new procurement activity.

Question 23 On page 34 of the BAA, under Section D. Phase 1 Execution Plan, a systems engineering plan and a technology maturation plan are requested. However, it is unclear if an initial outline or an approach to developing these documents is being requested. Please clarify what is being sought.

Answer: At a minimum, an outline of the plan is what we are looking for; however, the systems engineering plan and technology maturation plan must meet the stated requirements in the BAA for Track A and Track B proposals. For example, as stated on page 34, the TMP for Track A must provide the following:

o Initial and end of Phase 1 risk assessment of the OS POD;

o A list of major risk reduction tests, simulations, and demonstrations required to validate the ability to achieve the desired performance goals;

o Credible intermediate performance objectives (milestone criteria) associated with critical tests and demonstrations;

The TMP should provide us at least a top level understanding of key risk areas and your general approach for burning down risk with measurable progress.