QandA_Round_2.pdf

DARPA Blackjack Reference: HR001118S0032 Link: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/HR001118S0032/listing.html

May 16, 2018 1

Question & Answer #2

Question 9: Table 5 Thermal requirement shows a “Nominal” Requirement of 0W thermal load to the Bus and < 400 cm2 view to space. The “Best Case (provided by bus)” Requirement shows < 25W load to the Bus and < 2500cm2 view to space. For the Nominal Case it is assumed the 400cm2 view to space radiator is located on the Payload. For the Best Case Requirement should we assume the 2500cm2 view to space radiator is located on the Bus or the Payload?

Answer 9: For both nominal and goal any radiator must be located on the Payload.

Question 10: What is the Payload (Track A) completion date (Flight Article Delivery) for Phase 3?

BAA HR001118S0032 Figure 1 – indicates end of Q1FY21, Table 2 – has Phase 3 Payload delivery in Q3FY21.

Answer 10: The flight article delivery date should be Q1FY21. The flight article delivery quantity in Q1FY21 should be 18. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 11: BAA Section I.F.1 Table 4 specifies a stowed payload size parameter of 50 cm x 50 cm x 50 cm. Will DARPA consider payload components that fit within the volume constraint of those parameters, but may not align exactly with those dimensions, provided that the overall size will still fit within the structural dimensions of the bus? (For example, a thin, flat element mounted to the nadir deck of the S/C and conforming to the interfaces to be provided by

DARPA.)

Answer 11: DARPA will consider payloads that exceed the specified parameters; however, payloads should strive to keep their maximum stowed dimensions within the box provided.

Question 12: BAA Table 2 states that Phase 2 includes delivery of 2 flight units + EDU and Phase

3 includes delivery of “qty 20” flight articles, which would be a total of 22 flight units plus the EDU. Section I.D references Phase 3 delivery of 18 flight units, for a total of 20. Please clarify whether the total anticipated number of flight units in Phase 3 is 18 or 20, and whether the total across all phases is 20 or 22.

Answer 12: The total anticipated number of flight units is 20; Phase 2: 2 units + Phase 3: 18 units.

An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/HR001118S0032/listing.html

May 16, 2018 2

Question 13: Throughout the BAA, it is emphasized that payloads should be able to autonomously produce tactically relevant information, i.e., “not raw sensor data and not processed through a ground system.” However, footnote #3 in Blackjack OPIR Appendix A states the exact opposite, in which case Blackjack nodes need only generate sensor data for transmission to a ground station for processing. For the missile detect/defense mission, please clarify where tactically relevant data should be produced, i.e., should tracks of the target be produced on-orbit or on the ground?

Answer 13: In operational mode the payload should perform the data processing. All payloads should have a diagnostic mode that allows all data to be downlinked for performance validation and debugging.

Question 14: Please clarify the content requirements for Volume I Section I: Administrative. Should it match the requirements laid out in the BAA, or those listed in Attachment 3?

Answer 14: Proposers should complete both the Section I Cover Sheet and the Attachment 3 template following the requirements laid out for each.

Question 15: In the Blackjack BAA dated April 19, 2018, PART II, section I, D. Bus and Payload

Development Plan (page 8 of the document), Deliverables: All offerors should structure their deliverables as described below.

Phase 1 – Design work up to and including PDR (Track A&B); one Bus emulator/simulator for government hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) lab (Track B); 20 commercial user terminals – AESA or functional equivalent (Track B); two Payload scene emulator/simulator for HWIL lab (Track A) There is no further mention of the Payload scene emulator/simulators. Should the emulators be ignored for scheduling and cost purposes as part of Phase 1? Or is there another section that describes the emulators?

Answer 15: Scene emulators/simulators depend on the payload being proposed. The intent is to be able to simulate payload performance in the HWIL lab prior to integration. The emulators/simulators should be included in Phase 1 for scheduling and cost purposes.

Question 16: The total max pages is listed as 50, however, if the recommended page count values are added it equates to 54. Which value is correct?

Answer 16: The maximum page limit for Volume I is 50 pages when proposing a single concept.

The recommended values will be updated as follows: Section III: Detailed Proposal Information, A {12}; B {5}; H {4}; and L {4}. The allotments for individual elements are only a guide. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 17: Where should Attachments 3 and 4 be included, part of Volume I?

Answer 17: Attachments 3 and 4 should be included with Volume I. They do not count in the page count limit for Volume I.

May 16, 2018 3

Question 18: Should each payload have its own set of summary slides?

Answer 18: Yes

Question 19: Should each payload have its own Volume II – Cost Volume?

Answer 19: Yes

Question 20: Where should the small business contracting plan be documented? Does it go against the page count?

Answer 20: The small business subcontracting plan should be submitted with Volume II – Cost Proposal. Volume II has no page limit.

Question 21: Section IV 2.D states that, “If multiple payloads are proposed, a separate organization chart and program team should be provided for each payload”, Is that assumed to be included in the additional 10 pages per payload?

Answer 21: Yes

Question 22: Table 2 appears to be misleading and states there are 20 units delivered in Q3 FY21.

We believe that really should be 18. Please confirm.

Answer 22: The total anticipated number of flight units is 20; Phase 2: 2 units + Phase 3: 18 units.

An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 23: How do we ask a classified question regarding the classified appendix?

Answer 23: Please follow the guidelines specified in the section beginning on page 35, part (2) Classified Submissions and contact the BAA mailbox to pre-coordinate submission of classified questions.

Question 24: In Black Jack BAA Part II, Section IV.B.2 Proposal Format, Page 27, If a proposer submits a bus under Track B (50 page limit) and a single payload under track A is the total page limit for the proposer 60 pages?

Answer 24: Yes. Proposers may submit multiple payload and/or bus concepts up to the maximum total of 5 payloads and/or buses. All concepts should be proposed in a single technical volume.

Each concept should have a standalone SOW, Volume II, and Attachment 2. Bidders proposing multiple payloads and/or buses may add up to 10 additional pages in Volume I per additional proposed payload and/or bus with a maximum of 90 total pages.

May 16, 2018 4

Question 25: In Black Jack BAA Part II, Section I.D. Deliverables, Page 9 and Page 10, the BAA requests 2 flight units in Phase 2 (Track A & B) and 18 additional units in Phase 3 for a total of 20 units. However, Table 2 requires delivery of 2 units in Phase 2 and 20 additional units in Phase 3 for a total of 22 units. Would DARPA clarify the number of units to be delivered in Phase 2 and Phase 3?

Answer 25: The total anticipated number of flight units is 20; Phase 2: 2 units + Phase 3: 18 units.

Question 26: In Section I.D, DARPA requests the delivery of 20 commercial user terminals – AESA or functional equivalent (Track B). However in Section I.E, DARPA is seeking offerors to provide a commoditized satellite bus offering various payload options, along with constellation communication services and architecture services. The bus should be as identical as possible to a commercial bus save for the removal of commercial payload elements and the substitution of military payloads. If the commercial payload elements are removed, what is the purpose of the 20 commercial user terminals – AESA or functional equivalent?

Answer 26: The purpose of the antennas is to allow data flow during the demonstration phase of the program.

Question 27: In Section I.B, DARPA’s Notional Schedule shows Phase 1 concluding in 2QFY2019, In section DARPA I.D, DARPA requests the delivery of 20 commercial user terminals – AESA or functional equivalent (Track B) as a deliverable of Phase 1. It is highly unlikely that commercial available user terminals for LEO constellations will be available at that time. If user terminals are required as a deliverable, having them as a deliverable for Phase 2 along with the Initial Bus and P/L delivery makes more programmatic sense. Would DARPA considering shifting the delivery date from Phase 1 into Phase 2?

Answer 27: Yes. Identify schedule risks that require mitigation in Phase 1 and delivery in Phase 2.

Question 28: Page 34 states: “Unclassified subawardee proposals submitted to the government by the proposed awardee shall be submitted via DARPA’s BAA website by the subawardee.”

Should this read: “Unclassified subawardee proposals submitted to the government by the proposed subawardee shall be submitted via DARPA’s BAA website by the subawardee.”?

Answer 28: Yes. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 29: What is the required capability of the Payload emulators during Phase 1?

Answer 29: Scene emulators/simulators depend on the payload being proposed. The intent is to be able to simulate payload performance in the HWIL lab prior to integration.

Question 30: Is the recurring cost per payload in Table 4 – Payload Key Parameters, the Payload unit cost achieved after Phase 3 is complete, or the average Payload unit cost over Phase 2 Option 1 / Phase 3?

Answer 30: This is the payload recurring cost after Phase 3 is complete.

May 16, 2018 5

Question 31: “The total planned budget for award is $117.5M over three phases of the Blackjack program” – are the 3 phases referenced Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 2 Option 1?

Answer 31: The three phases are Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Phase 2 includes an option that’s exercised after CDR.

Question 32: Page 27 states: “Recommended page counts for individual elements of the proposal are shown in braces { } below In Section III. E. Design Review Content and Data Package Development (page 31) it states {no page limit}. Does the content of this section still go against the 50 page limit?

Answer 32: No. The recommendation for Section III, parts D and E will be updated to state: {no page limit, does not count against volume I page count limit}. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 33: Part II Section I (pg. 4) of the BAA states, “Each concept should be separable and severable from any other proposed concepts including a separate Statement of Work, Volume II - Cost Proposal, and Attachment 2 – Cost Summary for each concept.”

Part IV Section B2 (pg. 27) states, “The typical proposal should express a consolidated effort in support of one or more related technical concepts or ideas. Disjointed efforts should not be included in a single proposal.”

We interpret these provisions as requiring full stand-alone proposals when the underlying technical concepts are sufficiently unrelated and that a single proposal is required only when those technical concepts are simply variations of each other.

Is our interpretation correct? If not, how does DARPA interpret these two provisions?

Answer 33: The statement regarding “Disjointed efforts…” will be deleted and an updated BAA will be released. Proposers may submit multiple payload and/or bus concepts up to the maximum total of 5 payloads and/or buses. All concepts should be proposed in a single technical volume. Each concept should have a standalone SOW, Volume II, and Attachment

2. Bidders proposing multiple payloads and/or buses may add up to 10 additional pages in Volume I per additional proposed payload and/or bus with a maximum of 90 total pages.

Question 34: Would you please clarify the quantity of payloads to be delivered. In BAA Part II (D), the final sentence states, “Any bus or payload performer selected for Phase 3 should plan to deliver 20 flight units.” Earlier in the same paragraph when describing Phase 2 deliverables, it states, “Each bus and payload provider selected to build flight hardware must deliver two flight units and one engineering demonstration unit.” Therefore, is the requirement for 3 payloads in Phase 2 and an additional 20 in Phase 3? Or is it for 18 in Phase 3 to get to the overall number of 20 on-orbits satellites?

Answer 34: The total anticipated number of flight units is 20; Phase 2: 2 units + Phase 3: 18 units.

May 16, 2018 6

Question 35: On page 29 in Section III/Detailed Proposal Information and again on page 33 in the “Detailed cost breakdown”, reference is made to a “Base” period. Is this the same as combined Phases 1, 2 and 3 or does it refer to some other period?

Answer 35: Base refers to Phase I.

Question 36: Volume I page count: The BAA states the maximum page limit for Volume I is 50 pages (if submittal is only for one item). However, the pages allotted for Volume I/Section II total 8 and for Section III they total 45 – for an overall total of 53. Please clarify the maximum number permitted.

Answer 36: The maximum page limit for Volume I is 50 pages when proposing a single concept.

The recommended values will be updated as follows: Section III: Detailed Proposal Information, A {12}; B {5}; H {4}; and L {4}. The allotments for individual elements are only a guide. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 37: Can schedules be provided in contractor format vice MS Project?

Answer 37: Only if they are able to be viewed in MS Office or Adobe Acrobat.

Question 38: Please verify that the pages in proposal Volume I, Section III, Sub-sections D and E

(which simply say “no page limit”) do not count against the total Volume 1 Page count limit.

Answer 38: The recommendation for Section III, parts D and E will be updated to state: {no page limit, does not count against volume I page count limit}. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 39: Please clarify the number of buses to be delivered under Phase 3, in addition to the

2 that were delivered during Phase 2: is it 18 or 20?

Answer 39: The total anticipated number of flight units is 20; Phase 2: 2 units + Phase 3: 18 units.

May 16, 2018 7

Question 40: The RFP states that “Proposers shall prepare full proposals to address Phase 1 and a ROM for Phases 2 and 3 plus the potential follow-on effort in accordance with the proposal format instructions detailed under Section IV.” To ensure we do not misinterpret the instructions in Section IV:

a) For the following items in Volume I, Section III, please clarify if the proposal should cover just Phase 1, or all program Phases. If the latter, is it acceptable to provide only top-level estimates for Phases 2 and 3, since these will be updated as part of Phase 1? (The RFP only requires Phase 1 for the SOW; and it also says to be consistent with the IMS and cost proposal, which implies they too should only cover Phase 1.)

• Item C: Statement of Work / Work Breakdown Structure (SOW/WBS)

• Item D: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

• Item L: Milestone Costs and Accomplishments

b) For Volume II, please clarify what level of detail is required for Phase 1 versus Phases 2 &

3 for each of the following items:

• Attachment 2 – Cost Summary Spreadsheet: all 3 phases are listed in the template.

Is the intent to have bidders submit all 3 phases as part of their proposals? Or to submit only Phase 1 now along with top-level ROMs for Phases 2 and 3, and to provide the spreadsheet for Phases 2 and 3 during Phase 1?

• Additional Cost Proposal Information / Cost Breakdown information: similarly, is this level of detail only required for Phase 1, with detail for Phases 2 and 3 provided during Phase 1?

Answer 40: For Volume I, Section III, items C, D, and L, the proposal should cover Phase 1 only.

For Volume II, you may choose to delete some or all of the rows in Attachment 2, Phase 2, Phase 2 Option1, and Phase 3, depending on the approach and level of detail used in building your ROM. The Additional Cost Proposal Information/Cost Breakdown for Phase 2, Phase 2 Option1, and Phase 3 should include any relevant supporting cost information to help reviewers understand the basis of ROM costs, but detailed cost information is only required for Phase 1.

Question 41: Pg. 22, 2nd paragraph states “Submission of updated full proposals for future phases is optional …” and associated proposal preparation costs will not be reimbursed under Phase 1 awards” and “Performers who choose not to submit an updated full proposal for future phases will not be considered for future awards”. Elsewhere the BAA requires a firm proposal for Phase 1 and ROM’s for Phase 2 & 3. Does ROM’s for Phase 2 & 3 meet the requirement for submitting an “updated full proposals for future phases”?

Answer 41: No. Updated full proposals will be requested during Phase 1 for Phase 2 and during Phase 2 for Phase 3.

Question 42: What is expected from Payload providers for the “Payload scene emulator/simulator”? Is this expected to just include an interface simulator for Bus-to-Payload and Pit Boss-to-Payload testing and is not expected to include any payload functionality beyond this interface?

Answer 42: Scene emulators/simulators depend on the payload being proposed. The intent is to be able to provide scene data to the EDU and flight payloads in the HWIL lab prior to integration to the spacecraft. The emulators will not replace the payload in lab testing.

May 16, 2018 8

Question 43: Is the SE&I contractor going to accomplish initial integration of payload HWIL, PitBoss, and Payloads? Structural & Thermal impacts? Qualification planning and execution?

Answer 43: The SE&I contractor will perform integration and verification for the integrated system.

Bus and Payload providers will be required to verify performance of their systems to the extent possible prior to delivery.

Question 44: When will bus ICD be available to support Kickoff?

Answer 44: An interim version of the Interface Document is anticipated to be available in August

2018 with an update anticipated in October 2018.

Question 45: Will ICD be functional based, or include specific SW and HW interfaces?

Answer 45: The Interface Document will include spacecraft to payload interface specifications such as mechanical, electrical (power, data, software), thermal, environments, and SWAP.

Question 46: At what point will bus providers need to be ready to accept classified data, on classified payloads or missions? To what level of security?

Answer 46: All classified data passing through the bus will be encrypted before it reaches the bus.

The levels of security will depend on the payload selected.

Question 47: In Phase II, an Engineering unit is asked for to support Integration. Is that intended to be for Govt use in integration, by the SE&I contractor, or by the Bus provider?

Answer 47: At this time, it is anticipated that the Engineering Demonstration Unit will be for use by the government.

Question 48: What are the constraints/restrictions on deployed antennas, such as size and/or view to space? Are deployed reflectors acceptable for Blackjack payloads?

Answer 48: Deployed reflectors are acceptable. Details of available size and viewing envelopes will not be available until the bus provider is selected and interfaces are defined. Proposers are encouraged to consider more compact, less gossamer structures that are more likely to be compatible with the selected bus.

Question 49: Can you clarify “Autonomy (ops without human interaction)” (Table 4)? Is “ops” defined as a single payload performing its mission, or the blackjack constellation performing its mission, or other?

Answer 49: Operations will include both a single payload performing its mission and the Blackjack constellation performing its mission.

May 16, 2018 9

Question 50: Are the payload decks on the Blackjack satellite(s) fixed at zenith or nadir facing, or, can it be both based on mission?

Answer 50: It is anticipated that the nominal configuration will have nadir facing payload decks, however, both zenith and nadir are possible depending on the constraints of the selected bus.

Question 51: What is the purpose and functionality of the emulators requested for delivery in Phase

1?

Answer 51: Scene emulators/simulators depend on the payload being proposed. The intent is to be able to provide scene data to the EDU and flight payloads in the HWIL lab prior to integration to the spacecraft. The emulators will not replace the payload in lab testing.

Question 52: Within Volume I, Technical Proposal, should Section G, regarding ongoing research, include an assessment of what similar technologies have been or are being developed, external to the proposer’s organization?

Answer 52: Yes.

Question 53: On p.4 and p.27: Track A proposals presenting more than one concept per DUNS number are to be separable and severable, yet submitted as single proposal (p4); whereas “disjointed efforts” for unrelated concepts should not be included in the same proposal (p.27).

Therefore, is it acceptable to submit multiple, complete Volume’s 1 and Volume’s 2, with all associated concepts, for each unrelated concept; with each Volume 1a, Volume 1b, etc. allotted the full page count as described in the proposal format on p.27?

Answer 53: The statement regarding “Disjointed efforts…” will be deleted and an updated BAA will be released. Proposers may submit multiple payload and/or bus concepts up to the maximum total of 5 payloads and/or buses. All concepts should be proposed in a single technical volume. Each concept should have a standalone SOW, Volume II, and Attachment

2. Bidders proposing multiple payloads and/or buses may add up to 10 additional pages in Volume I per additional proposed payload and/or bus with a maximum of 90 total pages.

Question 54: On p.30-31: Sections III.D and III.E indicate no page limit, but do not state exclusion from the Vol I overall limit as do others (ex. III.C). Please clarify counting of these two sections.

Answer 54: The recommendation for Section III, parts D and E will be updated to state: {no page limit, does not count against volume I page count limit}.

Question 55: On p.42-43: Submission processes for three categories of proposals are identified:

Unclassified, Classified and Mixed; with numbers (1) [Unclassified] and (3) [Classified] specified. Is Mixed the second category intended, or is there entirely different category intended as number (2)?

Answer 55: The paragraph numbered (3) should have been numbered (2).

May 16, 2018 10

Question 56: The BAA states: "Each concept should be separable and severable from any other proposed concepts including a separate Statement of Work, Volume II -Cost Proposal, and Attachment 2 - Cost Summary for each concept." Can you clarify how Volume I is to be structured to be "separable and severable"?

Answer 56: All concepts should be proposed in a single technical volume. Proposals should clearly identify the applicability of each statement to each of the proposed concepts. Each concept should have a standalone SOW, Volume II, and Attachment 2.

Question 57: Can contractor submit total cost in their own format? The LOE template provided with the BAA only allows for labor cost data.

Answer 57: The contractor should follow the Volume II Cost Proposal instructions i.e. “The proposer should include 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. The Government strongly encourages that tables included in the cost proposal also be provided in an editable (e.g., MS Excel) format with calculation formulas intact to allow traceability of the cost proposal numbers across the prime and subcontractors.” Attachment 2 is a top-level Cost Summary for the various Phases that is also required but does not provide the level of detail required per Volume II.

Question 58: For Phase 1 Track A, the RFP lists “Payload scene emulator/simulator for HWIL lab”.

Would this be a hardware deliverable under the Phase I effort to simulate the full payload capability?

Answer 58: Scene emulators/simulators depend on the payload being proposed. The intent is to be able to provide scene data to the EDU and flight payloads in the HWIL lab prior to integration to the spacecraft. The emulators will not replace the payload in lab testing. The emulators/simulators should be included in Phase 1 for scheduling and cost purposes.

Question 59: When will we receive feedback on the abstracts?

Answer 59: Feedback will be provided as quickly as possible.

Question 60: On page 33 of the BAA, Section B, Bullet 1 - Please confirm that break down by major cost items is required for ROM costs which are in future phases.

Answer 60: Detailed cost information is only required for Phase 1. Level of detail for future phases is at the discretion of the contractor based on their ROM cost approach.

Question 61: On page 33 of the BAA, Section B, Bullet 2 - Does "fiscal year" refer to Government fiscal year (Oct-Sep) or Contractor fiscal year (Jan-Dec)?

Answer 61: US Government fiscal year.

May 16, 2018 11

Question 62: BAA Page 31, section L – “include estimates of cost for each task…” Please clarify and/or confirm that it is the government’s intention that detail cost data is to be provided in the Technical and Management Volume, rather than solely in the Cost Volume.

Answer 62: It is acceptable to reference data in the cost volume in completing this section.

Question 63: How does submission to both Track A and Track B affect final page count? Does submission of a Track B offering in the proposal reduce the number of allowed payload offering submissions?

Answer 63: Proposers may submit multiple payload and/or bus concepts up to the maximum total of 5 payloads and/or buses. All concepts should be proposed in a single technical volume. Each concept should have a standalone SOW, Volume II, and Attachment 2. Bidders proposing multiple payloads and/or buses may add up to 10 additional pages in Volume I per additional proposed payload and/or bus with a maximum of 90 total pages. Proposals should clearly identify the applicability of each statement to each of the proposed concepts.

Question 64: Does a submitted classified appendix count toward the total page count?

Answer 64: Yes.

Question 65: When multiple payloads are being addressed, is there a preferred method for presenting the various sections? Should each payload proposal be stand alone or can overlapping sections be addressed together?

Answer 65: The statement regarding “Disjointed efforts…” will be deleted and an updated BAA will be released. Proposers may submit multiple payload and/or bus concepts up to the maximum total of 5 payloads and/or buses. All concepts should be proposed in a single technical volume. Each concept should have a standalone SOW, Volume II, and Attachment

2. Bidders proposing multiple payloads and/or buses may add up to 10 additional pages in Volume I per additional proposed payload and/or bus with a maximum of 90 total pages.

Proposals should clearly identify the applicability of each statement to each of the proposed concepts.

Question 66: For ROM costing, what information needs to be included? Is a total amount adequate or is supporting information required? Does the ROM need to be broken out in any way (e.g. by year etc)?

Answer 66: For Volume II, you may choose to delete some or all of the rows in Attachment 2, Phase 2, Phase 2 Option1, and Phase 3, depending on the approach and level of detail used in building your ROM. The Additional Cost Proposal Information/Cost Breakdown for Phase 2, Phase 2 Option1, and Phase 3 should include any relevant supporting cost information to help reviewers understand the basis of ROM costs, but detailed cost information is only required for Phase 1.

May 16, 2018 12

Question 67: If abstract feedback cannot be supplied in a timely manner, will there be an extension to the proposal deadline?

Answer 67: Abstract feedback will be provided as quickly as possible to avoid an extension to the deadline.

Question 68: Are there limitations to the on-orbit payload center of gravity?

Answer 68: It is anticipated that there will be limitations to the payload CG. Details of the CG envelope will not be available until the bus provider is selected and interfaces are defined.

Question 69: Is all responsibility for isolation of a payload expected to lie entirely with the payload provider, or can there be some isolation built into the payload-bus ICD?

Answer 69: It is possible that some isolation can be built into the payload-bus interface.

Question 70: What does the "Pit Boss" clock include? How accurate will it be? Will the clock signal be available to all payloads on demand?

Answer 70: It is anticipated that a clock signal will be available to the payload. Clock accuracy is TBD. Proposers should specify the accuracy requirement to enable the proposed payload.

Question 71: Are we to assume all command and control responsibilities will reside in the "Pit

Boss"?

Answer 71: It is anticipated that autonomous command and control responsibilities will reside within the Pit Boss.

Question 72: What level of Technical Interchange Meeting support (how often? where? and who?)

is anticipated?

Answer 72: Quarterly TIM support should be assumed with attendance by each of the subsystem leads. Location is TBD.

Question 73: Where will milestone review meetings (KO, PDR, CDR, etc.) be held? Who will be required to attend?

Answer 73: Milestone reviews will be held at the contractor site. Attendance typically includes program management and subsystem leads.

Question 74: Is the government open to commercial terms and conditions for space hardware?

Answer 74: In accordance with the BAA, “Objective 2 is to develop and implement advanced commercial manufacturing for military payloads and the spacecraft bus.” Please refer to the BAA for a complete overview of the use of commercial space hardware.

May 16, 2018 13

Question 75: For offerings based on existing commercial technology, will MIL STD 1521B and Defense Acquisition Guidelines still be applicable?

Answer 75: The referenced standards are guidelines. Proposers may tailor their approach.

Question 76: Is DARPA/TTO willing to sponsor a Technical Assistance Agreement with foreign suppliers to execute the Blackjack program?

Answer 76: Yes. The intention to implement a Technical Assistance Agreement should be clearly identified in your proposal. Please note, in accordance with the BAA, 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.

Question 77: What is the dollar limit for sub-awardee proposals above which a full cost proposal must be included?

Answer 77: See page 33, part a, for subawardee proposal guidance.

Question 78: Will DARPA provide classified computers for the generation & submittal of classified appendices?

Answer 78: No.

Question 79: Can the classified appendix response (at the Collateral, Secret, Top Secret or SCI level) be submitted via the Savannah computer network?

Answer 79: Yes, if coordinated in accordance with the BAA instructions.