(U)UCforHypersonics_RWP_QA_FINAL.pdf

CONSORTIUM MANAGER FOR HYPERSONICS_REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS_QUESTIONS AND

ANSWERS

Question Answer

1) Commitment Letters: We are getting requests from various organizations (who are going to submit a white paper for the Hypersonics ULC) to give them a “Letter of Support” that indicates that we are interested in being part of the academic alliance. They are not asking for exclusive relationships but more a statement of intent. And, of course, each organization has their own unique format/template. [Entity] is obviously very interested in contributing to the technical challenges, but sending OUSD endless number of letters of support from each of the competing white papers seems overly burdensome to you. Does OUSD and your office have any sage advice here?

The government recommends following the guidance of the various organizations that are requesting “Letters of Support”. The government also recommends that universities burdened by this develop and submit a single “form” letter to those who have requests (i.e., we’re interested, here are the colleges (under the University) that wish to participate and here are the names of the leads in those colleges). Note: The RWP states, “Letters of Commitment from member universities wishing to join the Consortium should include limitations restricting participation to U.S. or cleared personnel or individuals with citizenship from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom”. Therefore, any “form” letter should include these limitations.

Any entity that submits a White Paper shall submit a list of the names of the letters they received; the government will only request “Letters of Support” if needed.

2) White Paper Submission and Contents: Can the White Paper be filed by a single professor or do university lawyers have to be involved? Do you need proposed research plans included in the white paper?

White Papers should be submitted by or with the endorsement of persons with the authority to represent or to eventually bind the entity that is responding to the RWP. Whether it would be appropriate for a single professor to submit a white paper on behalf of a university would be up to the university. Entities do not need to include proposed research plans in the White Paper; please see the RWP and RWP template that outline what to include in the White Paper.

3) Q&A for RWP: How will the government provide responses to these questions, (i.e. directly, posted on a website, etc.) and the expected timeframe for when we can anticipate responses?

The government will send the RWP Q&A to all vendors who submitted questions; the government will also post the Q&A to beta.SAM.gov The government anticipates responding to the Q&A by COB on 7/13/2020.

4) OT Authority: The Consortium for Applied Hypersonics Research Request for White Papers (RWP) mentions in several places that the Consortium will facilitate "prototyping/research projects." However, offerors with successful White Papers will be issued a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP).

* What constitutes a Prototype Project?

* Will the agreement be a Prototype Other Transaction Agreement?

Under 10 USC 2371, DoD has the authority to carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improve platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. This authority allows the Department more flexibility in contracting than is typical with Federal Acquisition Regulations, and is appropriate for the University Consortium and the projects pursued under the Consortium, to include basic, applied and advanced research. The agreement is anticipated to be an OT-Prototype.

5) Consortium Governance Board: Pre-screening prototyping/research proposals: Can the government explain the role of the Consortium Governance Board in developing "criteria" for pre-screening prototyping/research project proposals (Section VII.a.i.2.), in light of the government’s sole responsibility for accepting or rejecting proposals in accordance with the criteria of the individual project solicitation? (Section IV.a.)

The intent of pre-screening criteria is to ensure that proposals meet minimum administrative and technical requirements to allow the Government to make an informed selection.

6) Security: Security:

* Can you clarify what the government means by responsible for "all security management and administration of members' clearance adjudication?" (Section IV.b.iv). Will the Consortium Manager be responsible for vetting each Consortium member to determine its facility clearance eligibility and submit the necessary sponsorship for clearance to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)?

* Can you confirm that only cleared Consortium members will

The Consortium, as represented by the Consortium Manager, will be responsible for vetting each Consortium member to determine its facility clearance eligibility and submit the necessary sponsorship for clearance. Only cleared members will require a completed 441. The Consortium, as represented by the Consortium Manager, will require the ability to handle and maintain classified information; white papers can address how they best intend to handle classified requirements of consortium members. Only cleared and authorized U.S. citizens are to be participants on funded projects with case-by-case exceptions for universities, professors, and students from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

need to have an executed Security Agreement (DD Form 441)? (Section VI.a.)

* Does the government intend for the Consortium Manager to maintain a central computing environment compliant with NIST SP 800-171 for use and access by all consortium members? Or will the Consortium Manager need to just ensure that each Consortium member has the necessary compliant computing tools and understands that research funded under the OT will be subject to this requirement? (Section VI.b.)

* Can you confirm that All Foreign Nationals (including permanent residents) and US Citizens who are not cleared will need to be authorized by the DOD before participating in a project (assuming US Citizens with active clearances will not require authorization)? (Section VI.d.)

7) Commitment Letters: Are Letters of Commitment allowed as part of the White Paper submission? (Section VII.b.)

See response to Question #1.

8) OT Authority/Cost Share: Cost share Commitment: (Section XIII.a.) Is a University considered a "non-traditional" performer, thus making such performers (and the whole university Consortium) exempt from the 1/3 cost-share commitment?

Non-Traditional is defined by statute as:

“…an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.”

See also Question # 12.

9) OT Authority: We are anticipating that, consistent with Other Transaction Agreements with which we are familiar, the OTA will be entered into between the

That is correct. The bounds of the sub-agreements will be established by the OT-Prototype Agreement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/41/1502 government and the consortium manager, and that the "subprojects" awarded to members of the consortium will be governed by separate sub-agreements between the consortium manager and the pertinent performer(s). Can you confirm this understanding is correct? If not, is there a scenario under which the government would enter into a "subproject" agreement directly with the performer(s)?

10) Consortium Manager/Consortium Responsibilities: There are three mentions of a “Consortium Manager” in the RWP document, but there are far more references only to “Consortium”. Are the responsibilities outlined in section IV.b the responsibilities of the Consortium Manager or the Consortium as a whole? (Section IV.b.).

All aspects of the Consortium, to include management, project solicitation, award, and funding are managed under a single OT agreement. In this sense, there is no difference between the Consortium and Consortium Management. All activities identified as Consortium responsibilities will be overseen and as necessary executed by the consortium manager.

11) Consortium Roles and Responsibilities: Section IV. Roles and Responsibilities/ Paragraph b iii reads: The Consortium will have a role in pre-screening prototyping/research proposals, but is required to send all proposals to the government for consideration.

The Consortium will not amend Consortium members’ responses to competitive solicitations.; Question:

What is implied by pre-screen? I.e.

technical review? compliance check?

See response to Question no. 5.

12) Section XIII. Nontraditional Defense Contractor Participation of Cost-Share Commitment/Paragraph reads:

a. The Prototype Project awarded under an OT must meet at least one of the following conditions:

i. All participants are small or non-traditional; or

ii. At least one Non-traditional Defense Contractor (NTDC), small business, or

Non-profits should have been included in this section.

Per the statute,

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no official of an agency enters into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) for a prototype project under the authority of this section unless one of the following conditions is met:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1875391109-791309680&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1875391109-791309680&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b nonprofit research institution is participating to a significant extent in the Prototype Project; or

iii. At least one-third of the total cost of the Prototype Project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Government; or

iv. Senior procurement executive for the Agency determines, in writing, that exceptional circumstances justify the use of an OT.

Section X. Evaluation Factors, Criteria 4 reads:

4. Meets 10 U.S.C. § 2371b: The extent to which the there is significant nontraditional company and/or small business participation or 1/3 cost share.

Question: Was “nonprofit research institution” from the statutory reference unintentionally removed from the White Paper criteria or is WHS making some distinction here?

participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

13) Please confirm whether there is a page limitation for Section III: Cost Estimate

There is no page limitation to the cost estimate.

14) What are the expected in person Industry Days for years beyond 2021?

Anticipate the same expectation for (2) Consortium Industry Days and ten (10) Project Industry Days for subsequent years.

Ultimately, the consortium manager will be responsible for recruitment and engagement of consortium members. The Government currently anticipates 2 consortium industry days and 10 project industry days per year, but that may ultimately be left up to the consortium manager’s discretion.

15) Can we add a brief summary of resumes for the Consortium Manager key personnel outside the prescribed page count limitations?

Yes.