QandA_Round_2.pdf

DARPA Blackjack Pit Boss Reference: HR001119S0012

March 7, 2019 1

Question & Answer #2

Question 10: What start date should be used for the purposes of costing? The schedule in the BAA is difficult to decipher the start and end dates of the phases.

Answer 10: For costing purposes, assume a 15 July 2019 contract start.

Question 11: The schedule laid out on page 14 does not seem to align with milestones and deliverables on page 26. In particular, Option 1 and Option 2 are both due on Q2 FY20. Is this really the case?

Answer 11: On page 26, in Table 4, the Phase 1 Option 2 date should be Q3FY20. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 12: Is it possible to use our own pricing software which allows us to produce excel spreadsheets similar to the format of the cost template provided?

Answer 12: Per the BAA, use of the templates is mandatory for all proposal submissions. However, you can also include a separate excel spreadsheet file in your own format, if desired.

Question 13: Would DARPA reconsider the requirement for classified Abstract submission (six (6) hard copies of the abstract and two (2) electronic copies of the abstract [in PDF (preferred)] on a CD-ROM), allowing for electronic only (e.g. via Savannah) submission of the abstract?

Answer 13: For classified abstract submissions, it is acceptable to provide electronic-only submissions in the format specified in the BAA. Electronic submission of classified proposals must be transmitted via approved methods. Prior to transmitting classified information, notify DARPA by sending an UNCLASSIFIED e-mail to HR001119S0012@darpa.mil to coordinate the proper submission procedure. Notification must be submitted sufficiently in advance of the proposal due date to allow coordination. Late notifications may not be processed in time to enable proposal submission on time and will not constitute rationale for an extension. Note that a summary page must still be submitted via BAAT to receive a proposal number. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 14: Please confirm the entire proposal submission is electronic and no hard copies of the proposal are due, except for any classified portions.

Answer 14: Confirmed, the entire proposal submission may be electronic. Classified proposals may also be submitted electronically according to the instructions outlined in the ‘Classified Submission Requirements and Procedures’ of BAA HR001119S0012. Proposals submission are entirely electronic for unclassified portions, Electronic (via appropriate systems) or hard copy (via approved transmission) is acceptable for classified proposals. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

mailto:HR001119S0012@darpa.mil

March 7, 2019 2

Question 15: What is the anticipated contract type for Blackjack Pit Boss awards?

Answer 15: Per the BAA, the performer should indicate the type of award instrument requested.

See “Award instrument requested” on page 40, part c) Volume III Cost Proposal, item (9). In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed.

Question 16: Since the contents of this Appendix are classified and will require a somewhat lengthy response, will DARPA allow bidders to submit it as a separate, classified file that does not count toward the Volume I page limit?

Answer 16: Per the BAA, the maximum page limit for Volume I is 65 pages, including both classified and unclassified submissions.

Question 17: In the Deliverables Table 3, please clarify expectations for, and the definition of, an

EDU. It is referenced in the “End of Phase 2” column in Table 3, rows 16, 18 and 22.

Answer 17: An Engineering Development Unit (EDU) is a non-flight engineering model, built close to the form, fit, and function of a flight unit, but typically using lower cost components. The primary purpose of the EDU is to support risk reduction development testing.

Question 18: We have not seen a description of who will be providing the necessary crosslinks for the system, or firm requirements, to interface within Blackjack, and to the commercial comm systems. Can we assume a certain data rate on the crosslinks between 1Gps and 10Gps, for example?

Answer 18: The bus data rates are provided in BAA Appendix C.

Question 19: Please confirm that the OCI information can be submitted as an appendix to Vol I that does not count toward the page limit.

Answer 19: OCI disclosure information submitted in response to BAA page 32, part B, does not count towards the page limit. This information should be submitted as an appendix to Vol I.

Question 20: Please confirm the offeror’s understanding that the 65-page limit for Volume I is exclusive of the Section I: Administrative information and Official transmittal letter.

Answer 20: As stated in the BAA, Section I: Administrative, part A (Cover sheet) does not count against the Volume I page limit. Part B (official transmittal letter) DOES count against the page limit with a recommended page count of 1 page for the letter.

Question 21: Please indicate where in the proposal you want bidders to include the information from Attachment 3. Will these pages be excluded from the Vol I page count?

Answer 21: This information can be included as an attachment to Volume 1. No page limit has been specified for Attachment 3, and it will not count against the Volume I page limit.

March 7, 2019 3

Question 22: Please explain where the sample slides located in Attachment 4 should be included in Volume I of the proposal. Will these slides count toward the page limits?

Answer 22: As stated in the BAA page 34, the templates included in the attachments do not count in the page count limit for Volume I. Proposers may determine the best location to include attachment 4 in Volume I.

Question 23: Please confirm that Front Matter (Table of Contents, List of acronyms, List of Figures, etc.) will not count against page count.

Answer 23: A table of contents, list of figures, and list of acronyms will not count against the page count limit specified in the BAA.

Question 24: Please confirm that the 65-page limit for Volume I is exclusive of items C, D, and E.

Answer 24: Responses to Section III: Detailed Proposal Information, parts C (SOW), D (IMS), and E (design review and data package) have no page limit and do not count against the volume I page count limit.

Question 25: Will you allow the information required in Section IV.B.3.h to be omitted from the page limitation (in section IV.B.2.a) III.F) since it does not count toward the page limit of the earlier section IV.B.2.a) II.C?

Answer 25: As stated in IV.B.2.a.II.C, there is no page limit for the intellectual property forms listed in IV.B.3.h. This applies wherever these forms are included.

Question 26: In Section IV.B.2.a)III.K Could you provide clarification on what type of support, other than teaming, you wish bidders to address and whether or not teaming agreements should be included in this section? If teaming agreements are to be included, can you clarify what information is needed from each team member?

Answer 26: Paragraph IV.B.2.a.III.K requests additional details to enhance the support team description provided in section II, part D, including any formal teaming agreements required.

Question 27: Please clarify whether a small business subcontracting plan is required with this proposal. If so, which volume/section should it be inserted into?

Answer 27: Proposers should determine whether a small business subcontracting plan is required based on the referenced sections of the FAR and Small Business Act. The plan should be included in Volume II, cost proposal.

Question 28: Section V.4, paragraph 2, indicates the proposal evaluation will consider the bidder’s

“prior experience in similar efforts…” However, Section IV does not indicate where the past performance should be included and any required components or format for it. Therefore, can the bidder’s past performance be included as an Appendix to Volume I that does not count toward the page limit? Also, if the government requires certain information or a format, please provide it to the bidders.

March 7, 2019 4

Answer 28: Proposers should include prior experience within their response to Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal.

Question 29: What is the process for submission of CLASSIFIED proposal in terms of the technical volume and the cost volume? Do we submit the cost volume separately via the baa.darpa.mil website or do we submit it packaged up with the classified tech volume?

Answer 29: As outlined in page 46, part (3): For a proposals that includes both classified and unclassified information, the proposal may be separated into an unclassified portion and a classified portion. The proposal should include as much information as possible in the unclassified portion and use the classified portion ONLY for classified information. The unclassified portion can be submitted through the DARPA BAA Website, per the instructions in Section IV.B.4.b. The classified portion must be provided separately, according to the instructions outlined in the ‘Classified Submission Requirements and Procedures’ of BAA HR001119S0012. Please refer to Answer 14 regarding submission of classified proposals.

Question 30: The second to last paragraph of section V.1. indicates the evaluation of the Overall

Scientific and Technical Merit will include “the recurring cost of each unit for current and future contract quantities…” Do you want these costs in Volume I or in the Cost volume?

Answer 30: It is anticipated that these costs will be included in the cost volume.

Question 31: Could you please confirm that it is okay to submit a cover page along with an abstract submission?

Answer 31: Referencing Section IV.B.1 Abstract Format in the Pit Boss BAA: "Abstracts should follow the same general format as described for proposals (see Section IV.B.2, “Proposal Format”) but include ONLY Section I (without the Official Transmittal Letter) and Section II-A of Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal. The cover sheet should be clearly marked “ABSTRACT,” and the total length should not exceed two pages, excluding the cover page in Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, Section I."

Question 32: Can you please provide a classified email address to send electronic copies of the classified abstract and proposal responses?

Answer 32: Please email HR001119S0012@darpa.mil to request the classified email address for submission of classified abstracts and proposals.

Question 33: Please clarify the major milestone dates for the program through Phase 3. It appears in Figure 3 the program is expected to start on/about 1 July 2019 (start of FY19Q4) with SRR on/about 1 Sep 2019 (2 month PoP), but Table 4 states the kickoff will be in Q3 FY19 with the milestones for Phase 1 being completed in Q1 FY20. It appears Table 4 might have the incorrect Phase 1 dates with all subsequent milestones pushed to the right inadvertently.

Answer 33: Assume 15 July 2019 contract start and Table 4 Phase 1 (base) Kickoff should be Q4FY19. The Phase 1 SRR milestone is correctly placed in Q1FY20. Table 4, Phase 1 (option 2) milestones should be Q3FY20. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

mailto:HR001119S0012@darpa.mil

March 7, 2019 5

Question 34: Please clarify the deliverables expected during each phase as articulated in Table

4. It appears the Pit Boss parameters along with Behaviors are expected to be delivered during Phase 1 Base Period, but Figure 3 shows behaviors to be delivered in Phase 1 Option 1.

Answer 34: During Phase 1 Base, the Pit Boss parameters and behaviors will be described in an initial mission architecture specification as explained in section F. Development Plan, Phase 1 Base. During Phase 1 Option 1, a Pit Boss software behavioral model will be developed to support testing in a virtual mission testing environment. In Table 3, item 11, Software Development Kit, delete the "D" from the SRR column and replace with "Draft Description Doc", then change the "U" under Option 1 PDR column to a "D". Table 3, item 12, Pit Boss Software Behavioral Models, should move the Due date over 1 column to Phase 1 Option 1, 2 months after SRR. Table 4, Phase 1 (base) should state “Pit Boss Parameters and Behaviors Description”.

Table 4, Phase 1 (option 1) should include “Pit Boss Software Behavioral Model” in Q2FY20.

Also, In Table 3, item 10, Pit Boss Software, delete the Due date "D" from the SRR column and change the "U" in the Option 1 PDR column to a "D". An updated BAA will be released incorporating these changes.

Question 35: Currently, software delivery is required prior to PDR and CDR which is prior to completion of design. Please clarify the expectation for the Pit Boss software (CDRL 10), Pit Boss SDK (CDRL 11), and Pit Boss Software Behavior Models (CDRL 12) to be delivered at SRR, prior to the architecture specification (CDRL 4), the software design specification (CDRL 7), and other specifications and ICDs.

Answer 35: Please see answer 34. Phase I base should include delivery of Software Parameters and Behaviors descriptions/requirements due at SRR. Software Behavior models are due at PDR in Phase I, Option 1.

Question 36: Please clarify the expected periods of performance for each Phase.

Answer 36: It is our expectation that the various phases will follow a timeline similar to: Phase I

Base (Q4FY19 – Q1FY20), Phase I Option 1 (Q1FY20 – Q2FY20), Phase I Option 2 (Q2FY20

– Q3FY20), Phase II (Q3FY20 – Q2FY21), Phase III (Q2FY21 – Q4FY22)

Question 37: Please confirm that the intent is for the Software Behavior Models deliverable to be submitted at SRR and updated in Phase 1 Option 1. On page 22, the textual description of Phase 1 Option 1 says “…The performer will develop models of the software behaviors”, implying the creation task is part of that option.

Answer 37: Please see Answer 34.

Question 38: The deliverables Table has the initial Pit Boss Software due at SRR. Given that this is very early in the development schedule and the SRR description (page 27) has the performer delivering Level 1 requirements and a conceptual design; please confirm that it is intended that there is an initial software delivery at this stage.

Answer 38: Please see Answer 34. Deliverables for Phase 1 Base are software descriptions and requirements, whereas deliverables for Phase 1 – Option 1 are software models due at PDR.

March 7, 2019 6

Question 39: Table 4 shows the SRR being in Q1FY20. Figure 3 (notional schedule) appears to show the SRR occurring in Q4FY19. Please confirm which is intended.

Answer 39: The Phase 1 SRR milestone is correctly placed in Q1FY20. Figure 3 should shift 1Q, reflecting that SRR is in Q1FY20. An updated BAA will be released incorporating this change.

Question 40: Prior proposer's day material and prior BAA's suggested the Blackjack satellite spacecraft bus would be managed independently from Pit Boss as part of a commercial constellation and as such Pit Boss could make requests, but not commands of the Bus. Pit Boss BAA material includes the need for Pit Boss to conduct constellation management such as orbit maintenance, node spacing or even station keeping (page 11). This appears to be an objective for Pit Boss to exercise a deeper level of control over the bus than previously envisioned. Please confirm that this is a change in intent and not a just wording changes without a change in the vision for which provider is responsible for spacecraft control.

Answer 40: Confirming change in intent, as Pit Boss has evolved over time since proposers day and previous BAAs. The content in BAA HR001119S0012 most accurately represent the desired Pit Boss function and capabilities.

Question 41: Does the SWaP size provided in the appendix include size of chassis and external connectors?

Answer 41: No, the SWaP size provided solely refers to the SWaP of Pit Boss itself, not the integration elements.

Question 42: Please confirm that we should use a projected start date of 1 July 2019 for costing purposes as indicated in Figure 3.

Answer 42: Please see Answer 10.

Question 43: Table 4 shows Option 2 Deliverables being in Q2FY20. Figure 3 seems to show the phase ending in Q3FY20. Please confirm the intended completion period for Option 2.

Answer 43: Please see Question 11.

Question 44: The dates for multiple events such as KO and SRR do not seem to be aligned between Figure 3 and Table 4. Please clarify which graphic takes precedence.

Answer 44: Please see Answer 33.

Question 45: Appendix A describes TA6 Scale . Are those numbers meant to apply to the Blackjack constellation as a whole, or to every individual Pit Boss edge node?

Answer 45: The scale described on page 2 of Appendix A refers to the entire Blackjack architecture.

March 7, 2019 7

Question 46: Appendix A calls for the Pit Boss performer to “describe their plans to work with” various government organizations, as an integrated product team”. Will DARPA provide contact information for appropriate persons in those organizations who are familiar with the Blackjack program and requirements? Can these contacts provide any support during the proposal preparation activities?

Answer 46: DARPA will not be providing contact information until after award. The intent for this guidance is that the proposer describe internal plans, capabilities and personnel to support this collaboration.

Question 47: Would DARPA reconsider the method for transfer of Top Secret information, which currently is required to be by courier hand carry, instead allowing for submission by electronic means only (i.e. Savannah)?

Answer 47: Please see Answer 13. This applies to both abstract and proposal submissions.

Question 48: Table 3 – Primary Deliverables calls out several deliverables as part of the proposal and the instructions (pg. 23) indicate that “Proposals should contain initial versions of the deliverables identified in the “Proposal” column of Table 3 below, with updates and final deliverables provided as indicated in the table”. The government’s Volume I layout includes sections and instructions for inclusion of Proposal Deliverables 2 (IMS), 21 (Encryption and Information Assurance Approach), and 27 (Entrance / Exit Criteria). Are the other proposal deliverables to be submitted as separate documents (in contractor format) or should they be integrated into sections of the Volume I? Or should all specified deliverables also be submitted as separate documents? Please clarify the requirements for delivery so we can ensure compliance.

Answer 48: As summarized on page 36, 2. a) Section II, C. {3} all deliverables should be included in Volume I: Technical and Management Proposal. More details can be found in Section III.

Question 49: For the 60 days without operations center control, can it be assumed that Blackjack nodes still have bidirectional access to ground terminals for data dissemination and requests from subscribers?

Answer 49: Yes.

Question 50: Can you explain the functionality required for SRR deliverable Item 10, “Pit Boss

Software”, and how it relates to SRR deliverable item 12 “"Pit Boss Software Behavioral Models"?

Answer 50: Per page 21-22, Phase 1 – Base defines the requirements for the program: delivering an approach to extensible and scalable mission and software architectures at SRR. Phase 1 – Option 1 completes the Pit Boss HMSI Preliminary Design Review, and will include deliverables of scenario-based virtual mission testing and models of software behavior. Deliverables for Phase 1 Base are software requirements (SRR), whereas deliverables for Phase 1 – Option 1 (PDR) are software models. Please see Answer 34 for additional clarification.

Question 51: Does the total planned budget of $38.5M include multiple awards or is this the maximum for a single performer if selected for all phases?

March 7, 2019 8

Answer 51: The Budget cited in HR001119S0012 is anticipated to cover the entirety of work being solicited by BAA HR001119S0012, to include multiple awards. Multiple awards are anticipated.

The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation.

Question 52: Based on BAA Section F, Development Plan, models of the software behavior are developed in Phase 1 – Option 1, but Table 3 shows 2 deliverables of software at SRR in Phase 1 Base (item 10 Pit Boss Software and item 12 Pit Boss Software Behavioral Models). Are these deliverables intended for SRR, and if so, please explain the difference?

Answer 52: Per page 21-22, Phase 1 – Base defines the requirements for the program: delivering an approach to extensible and scalable mission and software architectures at SRR. Phase 1 – Option 1 completes the Pit Boss HMSI Preliminary Design Review, and will include deliverables of scenario-based virtual mission testing and models of software behavior. Deliverables for Phase 1 Base are software requirements (SRR), whereas deliverables for Phase 1 – Option 1 are software models (PDR). Please see Answer 34 for additional clarification.