MAD-FIRES_QA_PublicRelease_-_9-22-2014_final.pdf

DARPA-BAA-14-45

MAD-FIRES

Questions and Answers – Round 1 22 September 2014

MAD-FIRES BAA-14-45 Questions & Answers – Round 1

IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ANSWERS PROVIDED

HEREIN AND THE BAA, THE BAA SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE

Q1. Would it be possible to receive a copy of the Proposers’ Day materials? Is there an attendee list available?

o A1. Materials from the MAD-FIRES Proposers’ Day were included in the BAA addendum package; however, since the period for addendum requests and questions has closed, no additional information is available from the Government.

Attendee lists can be requested by e-mailing DARPA-BAA-14-45@darpa.mil.

Q2. In reference to proposal format, page 15 of the BAA says, “All pages shall be printed on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point.” Would DARPA consider the approval of the proposer using 11 by 17 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point?

o A2. DARPA will accept pages in this format, but each printed side of an 11x17 inch paper will count as two pages for sections with page limits.

Q3. Page 10 of the BAA says, “Since DARPA does not intend to provide classified or export controlled data to any international participants, proposers are reminded that implementation of applicable agreements and licenses is the responsibility of the proposer.”

Is it permissible to include foreign suppliers in potential solutions? If so, are applicable agreements and licenses required to be in place at time of award of Phase 0 or Phase 1, should a proposer propose a solution using a foreign supplier?

o A3. Foreign suppliers are not precluded by this solicitation. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations is the responsibility of the proposer. Schedules should reflect realistic approval timelines for agreements and licenses concerning foreign suppliers. It is our intention to prevent release of significant program information to foreign nationals, so a plan for obscuring program plans and requirements from foreign supplies should be presented that is consistent with the level of effort proposed for foreign suppliers.

Q4. Would DARPA consider providing the Gun System as Government Furnished Property (GFP) for Phases 1 and 2?

o A4. DARPA requests that proposals capture the full cost of the proposed program and obtain gun systems independently. If the gun system is only available as GFP, a justification and cost estimate is requested along with “need by” dates.

Q5. Is the proposer required to propose costs associated with Government-provided test installations and test assets (i.e., targets and surrogates)?

o A5. DARPA requests that proposals capture the full cost of the proposed program and price test ranges and targets independently. If ranges/targets/surrogates are only available as GFP, a justification and cost estimate is requested along with “need by” dates.

Q6. Page 18 of the BAA says that the page limit for Management Approach (Section III.G.) is only one page. Is this a typo?

o A6. No.

Q7. Is the page limit for the Schedule Summary mentioned on page 16 of the BAA one or two pages?

o A7. The page limit is two pages total. One page for Phase 0 and Phase 1, and one page for Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Q8. Section II of the technical and management proposal can be 45 pages, but the sub-section limits only add up to 44 pages. Which is the correct limit?

o A8. Risk Reduction and Deliverables should be 11 pages.

Q9. Page 5 of the BAA says, “Phase 0 will define concepts and establish a modeling and simulation baseline for the program.” Given that concept definition and refinement occurs in Phase 0, this may result in the modification to the risk burn-down activities and thus costs in Phase 1 (for example, originally proposed component selections may change significantly). In order for DARPA to receive accurate Phase 1 cost proposals, would the Government consider allowing contractors to update/revise their Phase 1 cost proposals during the execution of the Phase 0 effort?

o A9. It is not the Government’s intention to request revised Phase 1 cost proposals as part of the Phase 0 program.

Q10. Page 6 of the BAA says, “Although this BAA solicits firm proposals for Phase 0 (base) and Phase 1 (option) only, a preliminary statement of work (SOW), schedule, and rough order of magnitude (ROM) program cost for Phase 2 and Phase 3 are also required to facilitate DARPA's understanding of the scope of the proposed effort,” and page 18 says, “Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). At minimum, the IMS should address work breakdown to three levels with additional detail as applicable for Phase 0 and Phase 1.”

Is a detailed Master Phasing Schedule for Phases 2 and 3 sufficient?

o A10. Per page 16 of the BAA, “{2} Schedule Summary. A single page schedule should be included showing key program milestones for Phases 0/1 and for Phases 2/3.” Also as noted on page 6 of the BAA “a preliminary statement of work (SOW), schedule, and rough order of magnitude (ROM) program cost for Phase 2 and Phase 3 are also required to facilitate DARPA's understanding of the scope of the proposed effort. It is understood that these will be anticipatory and preliminary in quality.

Q11. Is there any additional information you can provide regarding the level of detail requested for the ROM phases of the program? The BAA makes a general statement that as much detail as possible in requested. What does that mean?

o A11. As noted on page 6 of the BAA, “rough order of magnitude (ROM) program cost for Phase 2 and Phase 3 are also required to facilitate DARPA's understanding of the scope of the proposed effort. It is understood that these will be anticipatory and preliminary in quality.” As noted on page 24 of the BAA under the evaluation criteria (e) Cost Realism, proposals will be evaluated to assess that the “proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach offered and demonstrate the proposer’s practical understanding of the effort. The costs proposed are based on realistic assumptions, reflect a sufficient understanding of the technical goals and objectives of the BAA, and are consistent with the proposer’s technical approach (to include the proposed Statement of Work).” As such, the ROM costs should be consistent with the proposed technical approach, risk reduction plan, and schedule and indicate to DARPA a preliminary estimate of the total cost of development and risk reduction remaining in the program past the initially costed effort.