DARPA-BAA-15-59_-_Questions_and_Answers_-_10-22-2015.pdf

DARPA-BAA-15-59

Gremlins

Questions and Answers 22 October 2015

Gremlins BAA-15-59 Questions & Answers

IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ANSWERS PROVIDED

HEREIN AND THE BAA, THE BAA SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE

Q1. Page 34 heading “2. Proposal Submission Date and Time” states, “…proposals received after this deadline may be received and evaluated up to eight months (240 days) from date of posting on FedBizOpps.” Can we submit the full proposal after the deadline of 17th November 2015?

A1. Proposals may potentially be received up until 240 days after the date that the BAA was posted on FedBizOpps, which is May 13, 2016. However, per pages 34-35 of the BAA, “the ability to review and select proposals submitted after the initial round deadline [November 17, 2015] … will be contingent on availability of funds. Proposers are warned that the likelihood of available funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the initial closing date deadline.”

Q2. If we decide to submit the full proposal, should the concept of the full proposal be according to the abstract we submitted earlier, or can we submit a full proposal that deviates from the abstract?

A2. Your proposal may deviate from the abstract submitted.

Q3. If a foreign government defense research team participates in the Phase I objectives and continues to participate in Phases II and III, would DARPA have any objections?

A3. Section III.A.2 of the BAA states: “Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances.” Proposers must assess whether a non-U.S.

organization on their team will hamper their effort based on team structure, role, export restrictions, and/or classification. With respect to participation of government organizations, potential proposers should refer to page 20 of the BAA.

Q4. Page 17 of the BAA describes aircraft sourcing and airworthiness information. What role will DARPA provide in flight test support and safety approval of surrogate aircraft systems in Phase II and Phase III?

A4. It is the responsibility of the proposer to outline an executable approach to flight testing and associated approvals. To the limits of its ability, DARPA is willing to facilitate interactions with other government organizations, including approval authorities and test ranges as proposed. Ultimately, however, the performer has responsibility for developing all documentation and review material to support any needed approval. If the proposer envisions the need for government flight test support or facilities, these should be identified in the proposal along with estimated cost for use of these facilities as part of the Phase II/III Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost.

Q5. Page 13 of the BAA states, “In DARPA’s vision, the GDS would, at a minimum, demonstrate the ability to recover at least four gremlins within 30 minutes onto a C-130 platform…Ultimately, the performer is tasked with developing an affordable GDS design and demonstration approach that best validates critical enabling technologies…”

With regards to demonstrating C-130 recovery in Phase III, what role will DARPA take in acquiring and managing the use of the C-130 as it relates to the proposal cost volume assumptions?

A5. Page 17 of the BAA states, “For risk reduction activity in Phase II/III that requires flight testing, the proposer should specify the preferred/desired source(s) of host aircraft (e.g., commercial lease) and the procedures by which they contemplate achieving airworthiness approval.” It is the responsibility of the proposer to outline an executable approach in line with its development plan.

Any costs to DARPA for Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be counted against the total budget available for Phases II/III. At this time, DARPA is primarily interested in the proposer’s vision for the Phase III demonstration and their understanding of the airworthiness issues, which cascades into the development approach, schedule and cost. DARPA is requesting a ROM for Phase III to assist in planning and budgeting. If the proposer plans to lease or directly acquire a host aircraft for testing, the proposer should itemize this cost in their ROM so that the Government can understand the cost as compared to GFE.

Q6. During Phase III, who will manage the MIL-STD-516 airworthiness approvals for the

GDS installation and operation on the C-130?

A6. Page 17 of the BAA states that “…the proposer should specify…the procedures by which they contemplate achieving airworthiness approval,” which could include a tailored basis, and further states, “DARPA is willing to consider alternative approaches to airworthiness approval, including retaining authority for such, to further program objectives.”

Q7. Regarding the Cost Volume, the BAA doesn’t reference any options for Phase I in

Appendix A. Should these columns be deleted in the template provided in Appendix A?

A7. The generic template in Appendix A allows for options if you choose to propose any.

Options are neither required nor anticipated. Any columns/tabs in the Appendix A MS Excel spreadsheet not used in a proposal may be deleted.

Q8. In Appendix A, are the Task tabs referring to the pricing by Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS)?

A8. Yes.

Q9. On page 32, the BAA requests cost broken down by contractor fiscal year and

Government fiscal year. The Appendix A instructions only refer to cost by contractor fiscal year. May we submit the cost by Government fiscal year in contractor format?

A9. Yes. As stated in the previous paragraph on page 32: “Summary cost information shall be provided using the MS Excel spreadsheet provided in Appendix A…The remaining cost proposal information may be submitted in the proposer’s format.”

Q10. Do the ROMs for Phase II and Phase III need to go into the spreadsheet given to the contractors from DARPA, or can contractors report those ROMs in the form of their choosing?

A10. Appendix A is only for the Phase I cost proposal. Please submit the ROMs for Phase II and Phase III in your own format as part of the cost volume.

Q11. Should ROM costs for Phase II and Phase III be presented on the Cost Proposal

Cover Sheet, or should just the detail for Phase I be broken out?

A11. Please include the Phase II and Phase III ROM costs on the Cost Proposal Cover Sheet.

Q12. Should the by-year costs on the Cost Proposal Cover Sheet be expressed as

Government Fiscal Year, Calendar Year, or Program Years?

A12. Summary costs on the Cost Proposal Cover Sheet should be expressed as Government fiscal year costs.

Q13. Section 2.9, Volume 2 – Cost Proposal - Detailed Cost Breakdown – paragraph (9) requests that appropriate cost or price analyses be provided of subcontractor proposals.

Is this requirement only required for Subcontractor proposals that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($150K), or is there a specific dollar threshold tied to this requirement?

A13. A Detailed Cost Breakdown, in accordance with Appendix A, and appropriate cost or price analyses should be completed for all subcontractor proposals. Price analysis of all subcontractor proposals is required. Cost analysis of all subcontractor proposals is required when certified cost or pricing data is required by the subcontractor (i.e. when subcontractor proposals are expected to exceed the $750,000 threshold). This requirement does not apply to commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items. For COTS items, a vendor quote or other supporting documentation is requested.

Q14. Section 2.9, Volume 2 – Cost Proposal - Detailed Cost Breakdown – paragraph (9) requests that “All proprietary subcontractor proposal documentation, prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime and which cannot be uploaded with the proposed prime contractor’s proposal, shall be provided to the Government either by the prime contractor or by the subcontractor organization when the proposal is submitted.” Is this requirement only tied to Subcontractor proposals that exceed the TINA threshold of $750,000 (FAR 15.403-4 – Certified cost or pricing data), or is there a specific dollar threshold tied to this requirement? What is the dollar value threshold for providing the Appendix A Cost Proposal Spreadsheet for subcontractors?

A14. See A13 above.

Q15. For Section 1.4 Human Subjects Research, is an IRB review required when humans will be testing items involved with the proposal but are not the subjects themselves?

A15. An IRB review may not be required. However, the Government cannot make a determination until it reviews a proposer’s proposal and statement of work.

Q16. BAA NAICs code 541712, Research and Development Physical, Engineering, Life

Sciences (except Biotechnology), dictates a size standard of 1,500 employees when the work to be performed is aircraft related. Please note the 541712 aircraft exception.

Since the scope of work to be performed in this proposal is research and experimental development involving aircraft, please confirm that the 1,500 employee standard applies to this solicitation.

A16. Yes.

Q17. Among the key contributing technology areas mentioned in the BAA is turbulent zone transit. Given that the severity of turbulence will vary in space, how does DARPA define the "turbulent zone"?

A17. The BAA notes that “a performer’s selection and inclusion of technologies should be weighted by impact on objective system cost-per-use and by demonstration value.” The decision to include technologies related to turbulent zone transit, and the applicability and definition of such, is dependent on the proposed concept.