QandA_Round_3.docx

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

Question & Answer #3

Question 80: Is there any guidance on how to plan for material procurement? In order to meet the schedule, it is possible some material will need to be procured prior to CDR. That, however, happens prior to the down select milestone.

Answer 80: It is anticipated that some long lead items may require procurement prior to CDR. These items should be identified in your proposal with dates, quantities, and ROM cost.

Question 81: When is the delivery date of the Payload emulators during Phase 1?

Answer 81: This will be dependent in part on the type of payload being proposed. It is anticipated that the payload emulators will need to be delivered approximately two months prior to PDR to support integrated performance simulation.

Question 82: Are there bounds on the SWaP-C allocated for the PitBoss? High and low?

Answer 82: The bounds for the SWAP-C in Table 4 are allocated to the payloads and do not include allocation for the Pit Boss.

Question 83: BAA states that it shall deliver a hardware in loop (HIL) simulation/emulation into the government platform. What is software-base for the government HIL platform? Can a Matlab based HIL simulation platform be ported onto the government platform?

Answer 83: The design details for the government platform are TBD at this time, however, it is reasonable to assume that a Matlab based simulation platform can be used.

Question 84: How many program-wide, PI meetings will be anticipated, who will attend, and where will these be held? (Section VI.B.1, Page 48 in the BAA) Answer 84: The term “PI Meetings” will be replaced with “Technical and Management Meetings”. Proposers should assume quarterly program management reviews to include the contractor PM and lead systems engineer. These reviews will either be held at the contractor’s facility or via telecon. Milestone reviews (Kickoff, SRR, PDR, etc) with the PM and subsystem leads will be held at the contractor’s facility. Less formal technical coordination meetings and management status meetings can be expected more frequently on a monthly basis, or as needed. In the BAA page 12, Government Management Approach paragraph, proposers are asked to recommend a management approach to ensure a successful program.

Question 85: Would Pit Boss provide Root Trust for all the payloads in each space craft in addition to Encryption? This will avoid each payload having a duplicate Root Trust mechanism that adds C-SWAP.

Answer 85: Details of the Pit Boss functionality are TBD. Payload proposers may propose a functional architecture that they believe is the most advantageous to the Blackjack system.

Question 86: Is each payload responsible to provide a communication link to its intended DOD users, or can the payload assume that this link will be provided by Pit Boss?

Answer 86: All payload communications can be assumed to route through the Pit Boss and the Pit Boss will provide functionality to route communications to the intended DOD user.

Question 87: Under proposal format, can the customer elaborate on “Up to four pages may be used for letters of support and do not count to the 50 page limit”?

Answer 87: Letters of support may include letters of commitment from a member of the proposer’s team or other entities providing critical support for the proposed work.

Question 88: Will the customer define levels of importance (weighting) under the evaluation criteria for the mission types?

Answer 88: No.

Question 89: In the BAA, “Objective 2 is to develop and implement advanced commercial manufacturing for military payloads and the spacecraft bus. Blackjack will develop high-rate manufacturing using OTS-like parts, reduced screening and acceptance testing for individual spacecraft, and reduced expectations for spacecraft life.” This does not show up in the evaluation criteria language. Can we assume that the recurring cost criteria is equal to objective 2 (e.g. recurring cost of each unit for current and future contract quantities)?

Answer 89: The evaluation criteria are described in Section V.A and include the Key Payload/Bus Parameters and bulletized considerations. This includes recurring cost, design life, and production approach along with other related criteria.

Question 90: The BAA was accompanied by Attachment 4_Summary Slides, but there is no request or direction to submitters to submit quad charts for Blackjack. Please clarify what offerors should do with this template, if anything.

Answer 90: Per page 27, part (2) Proposal Format, all proposals must include the parts listed, including Attachment 4 – Summary Slides. As stated, the attachments do not count in the page count for Volume I.

Question 91: For offerors intending to submit SCI material in response to the BAA, may submissions be sent via classified email on the appropriate system (e.g., JWICS)?

Answer 91: Yes, as long as they meet the applicable requirements beginning on page 35, part (2) Classified Submissions, and are properly pre-coordinated through the BAA mailbox, HR001118S0032@darpa.mil. Offerors should begin coordination through the BAA mailbox a minimum of 7 days prior to the submission deadline.

Question 92: Will the bus provide GPS messages to the payloads?

Answer 92: It is anticipated that the bus will provide GPS messages to the payload, however, details will remain preliminary until the bus provider is selected.

Question 93: Are there specific requirements levied on the payload emulator/simulator (quantity 2) for Track A payloads in general, and for an RF payload specifically?

Answer 93: There are no specific requirements, but the intent of the payload emulator is to provide as high quality scene generation as possible to the payload for the HITL/Virtual testing with Bus to Pit Boss to Payload scene emulation configurations and for early (pre-CDR) Pit Boss testing (emulator to Pit Boss).

Question 94: Are 11”x17” foldouts allowed if submitting via hard copy?

Answer 94: Yes. Please see Proposal Format instructions on page 27.

Question 95: Can we submit the classified portion of our proposal via JWICS or are hard copies (1 original and 6 copies plus a CD-ROM) required?

Answer 95: Yes, as long as they meet the applicable requirements beginning on page 35, part (2) Classified Submissions, and are properly pre-coordinated through the BAA mailbox, HR001118S0032@darpa.mil. If submitting a hard copy delivered to DARPA, 1 hard copy original plus a CD-ROM is sufficient. Offerors should begin coordination through the BAA mailbox a minimum of 7 days prior to the submission deadline.

Question 96: Could you provide clarification on submitting our unclassified portion of the proposal? Do we need to provide hard copies in addition to submitting it through the DARPA BAA website?

Answer 96: Hard copies are not required if submitting through the BAA website.

Question 97: Can you accept Secret/NOFORN proposals?

Answer 97: Yes, as long as they meet the applicable requirements beginning on page 35, part (2) Classified Submissions, and are properly pre-coordinated through the BAA mailbox, HR001118S0032@darpa.mil. Offerors should begin coordination through the BAA mailbox a minimum of 7 days prior to the submission deadline.

Question 98: Clarify Pit Boss autonomy. Is the Pit Boss expected to send all operational commands during autonomous operation, or is our payload expected to be autonomous outside the Pit Boss <i>in addition to</i> being responsive to commands from that unit?

Answer 98: The division of autonomy functions between the Pit Boss and the payload will be dependent in part on the type of payload. It is anticipated that the Pit Boss will be responsible for mission level autonomy including collaboration with other nodes and commanding of payloads. Payload level autonomy should enable the payload to operate without ground command and control while providing data to the Pit Boss for dissemination to other Blackjack spacecraft and DOD users. The Pit Boss is expected to send all operational commands during autonomous operation.

Question 99: The RFP says we'll receive "unregulated power", but also says the Pit Boss will provide "payload power switching." Should we assume our unit will have uniform power available at all times, or are we to provide an operational power cycle?

Answer 99: The details of the Pit Boss are TBD, but for the purpose of the proposal concept, one may assume that the payload will not be required to provide an operational power cycle. Proposers should clearly list in their proposal all functions that are assumed to be provided by the Pit Boss.

Question 100: In one part of the RFP we're told to expect 30 days of autonomy; in another, we're told contact outages will be greater than 1 day. Which one of these is the design parameter?

Answer 100: The 1 day parameter is nominal with a goal of 30 days for the bus, all payloads, and Pit Boss.

Question 101: The payload section includes "Payload Parameters", but it also has sub-payload requirements for some cases. Are these distinct? Or are we supposed to use any design elements that might apply from the subsections (e.g. GPS performance if we require onboard GPS capability)?

Answer 101: The information provided in the Payload Envelope section of the BAA may be used as applicable, however, the values are the government’s current best estimate and are subject to change.

Question 102: On Page 30, the list of requirements under (C) indicates it's "for each task/subtask"; subsequent items refer to "task/activity". Are these distinct? If so, please clarify what the difference is and when it applies in that section.

Answer 102: No. They are not distinct.

Question 103: Page 31 says "proposer's previous accomplishments" -- does this include partners/subcontractors?

Answer 103: Yes.

Question 104: Page 31, Part (J) says "description of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort" -- Presumably this applies only to the Phase 1 proposed effort and not the ROM for Phase 2/3?

Answer 104: Yes.

Question 105: Page 31, Part (K) calls for "descriptions of support" -- should these just be teaming agreements, or is DARPA seeking, e.g., letters of support from other organizations?

Answer 105: Part (K) does not include the referenced phrase.

Question 106: Although it is clear that this proposal should only cover Phase 1 and ROM Costs for Phase 2 & 3, looking more in detail and the some of the deliverables and milestones set forth in the proposal it can be unclear at times of how much detail we are to provide for Phase 2 & 3 I.e. We need to talk about 20 constellation end goal however that is for Phase 3 or facilities description: Is that only for Phase 1? Because it will be more relevant for Phase 2 and 3 scaling up. Another Example: Risk management: Are we to only address Phase 1 or Phase 2 & 3 also? The WBS and Org Chart: Are to show a more detailed one for Phase 1 and show the possible progression into Phase 2 & 3?

Answer 106: 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. Proposers may include additional levels of detail where they feel it will help reviewers to better understand the basis of ROM costs.

May 22, 2018

May 22, 2018