URSA_BAA_Questions_and_Answers.docx

URSA BAA Questions and Answers

1. On page 33 of the BAA, it is stated that “Summary cost information shall be provided using the excel spreadsheets and guidance provided in Attachments 1,2 and 3 and using the same WBS as the SOW and IMS.” Is it possible for us to submit our cost proposal formatted the exact same way as the spreadsheets that were provided instead of directly entering data into these spreadsheets?

a. It is acceptable for proposers to export cost information from internal tools and replicate the DARPA provided spreadsheets without having to manually enter the information. However please ensure these files are also provided in excel with formulas intact to enable independent manipulation and data analysis by proposal reviewers.

2. "Section B. Evaluation Criteria - Track B” section "1. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit”, second paragraph reads: ”The Government will review the Phase 1 program plan, review schedule and deliverables to assess whether they and provide adequate insight into technical progress of the program at appropriate intervals.” Is the “and” in the sentence accidentally left in, or is there a portion of the sentence that is missing?

a. That is a typographic error. The “and” should be moved before the word “review”.

3. Page guidelines: For Track A, is it correct that the section page allocation is at the discretion of the contractor as long as the total is less than 45 pages?

a. Yes - bracketed numbers after each section heading denote recommended page allocations.

4. Section B.5 discusses intellectual property and mentions proprietary and Government purpose rights “at a minimum” – where do SBIR Data rights fit into this range? Does DARPA view SBIR rights to be equal to or more than the minimum specified for GPR?

a. Proposers may assert SBIR data rights. The objective of the intellectual property rights discussion is to ensure that DARPA has adequate data rights to be able to share program results and generate program advocacy with potential users, as well as the ability to potentially integrate with additional data sources, mission management systems, etc. If a proposer asserts restrictions in various areas, the proposer should discuss their approach for meeting DARPA‘s objectives.

5. Track A and Track B Performer Collaboration: is it correct that Track A performers are only responsible for teaming with Track B performers in preparation of the Phase 2 Proposal and not as part of Phase 1?

a. Track A proposers should define their approach for working with Track B performers as part of their proposal.

6. Will DARPA SMEs be available and/or expected to participate in Track A phase I demos? If so, how will that effect HSR determination?

a. Proposers should determine which of their demonstrations require an HSR determination, the timing of these demonstrations, and the desired participants.

7. Please advise if, in accordance with the Class Deviation (2018-O0012) issued 13 April 2018 by Shay Assad, Director, Defense Pricing/Defense, we may assume the threshold for submittal of certified cost or pricing data under this BAA will be $2,000,000 since contracts will be entered into after the 30 June 2018 threshold increase implementation date.

a. Yes

8. The BAA indicates a 12-month period of performance for Track B performers. Should we assume this 12-month period includes the final report, or is it intended that the 12 months is for technical performance and another 30-60 days should be added for the final report draft submission/approval/final submission cycle?

a. The BAA has defined an approximate 12-month period of performance. Proposers should provide rationale for their proposed schedule.

9. The BAA refers to the duration of Track B efforts as “approximately” 12 months. Will Track B proposals with a period of performance lasting 13 or 14 months be acceptable, in order to accommodate final analysis, reporting, and initial Phase II teaming discussions?

a. The BAA has defined an approximate 12-month period of performance. Proposers should provide rationale for their proposed schedule.

10. With incorporation of the Track B efforts into Track A efforts coming at the discretion of Track A performers, does DARPA expect Track A performers to budget for these teaming efforts between months 12 and 18 in Phase I, or should Track B performers expect a gap in the effort between Phase I and Phase II?

a. Proposers should describe their approach for working with performers in the other track as part of their proposal.

11. Pages 10-11, Program Metrics and Phase 2 Go/No-Go Decision (Table 1): A hunter-killer team of 4 people: Is that 2 hunters and 2 killers, or 4 people that all can be either hunters or killers?

a. Proposers should define their point of departure assumptions used in their proposal analysis approach. The Government will work with awardees to refine CONOPS and scenarios after award. The reference provided in DARPA’s Proposers’ Day question responses is a good starting point.

12. Pages 10-11, Program Metrics and Phase 2 Go/No-Go Decision (Table 1): Is the goal to detect 12 individuals out of 20, or 3 hunter-killer teams of 4 out of 5 teams?

a. Proposers should define their point of departure assumptions used in their proposal analysis approach. The Government will work with awardees to refine CONOPS and scenarios after award.

13. Page 11, Program Metrics and Phase 2 Go/No-Go Decision: What is the definition of the term "multiscale" on page 11?

a. The metrics will be applied to whatever size environment the proposer chooses to implement in Phase 1. The desired scale for Phase 1 is, at a minimum, described in Table 1.

14. Pages 35-37, H.2. Security Information: What security level do you envision the track B teams to be performing at within each of the phases?

a. We are expecting an unclassified effort at this time.

15. Is a reference section, which lists the sources of cited material, included in the page count?

a. No