HR001120S0010-Amendment-01.pdf

Sea Train Proposers Day December 17, 2019 Q&A

Q1: How stringent is the requirement to propose a single design concept?

A1: DARPA expects each proposal submission to contain one approach to achieve the goals of the Sea Train program.

Q2: How stringent is the requirement to use identical vessels for each unit in the train?

A2: Each vessel should have identical specifications and systems. There can be consideration for real time modifications to the vessels through existing or novel control surfaces to promote seakeeping, performance, and efficiency.

Q3: Do I understand correctly that we do not need to address autonomous control issues such as navigation, non-train collision avoidance, etc. because they are already available for single vessels?

A3: DARPA believes previous DARPA and Navy programs sufficiently demonstrated the ability of a single unmanned surface vehicle (USV) to conduct collision avoidance measures. However, proposers should consider the operation of their proposed Sea Train concept of connected, connectorless, or formation vessels, with respect to collision avoidance regulations to determine if unique autonomy behaviors are required to sufficiently reduce technical and operational risk.

Q4: Is this solely focused on the displacement regime or can semi-displacement/planing hull forms be considered?

A4: All surface vessel hull forms can be considered.

Q5: State Department/Navy has returned without action technical assistive agreements submitted for medium unmanned surface vehicle (MUSV) and large unmanned surface vehicle (LUSV) programs. Will DARPA support submissions to enable international teams as long as Export controls and CUI protection is assumed?

A5: Yes, refer to the BAA requirements for export control, compliance, and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) protection.

Q6: The Proposer’s Day schedule chart (slide 17) shows abstracts and proposals. Slide 24 does not identify abstract due date. Is there an abstract due date and then proposal? If so, what is the due date?

A6: DARPA will not solicit abstracts for this BAA.

Q7: Will DARPA post a library of previous government sponsored work?

A7: There are Sea Train studies in the public domain, therefore DARPA will not provide a catalog of such work.

Q8: Proposer’s Day Slide 7 – How do you define the word ‘surface’ in the phrase ‘unmanned surface vessels’?

A8: DARPA expects proposals that explore the Sea Train concept with displacement, semi-displacement, and planing hulls. DARPA is not interested in semi-submersible or submersible hull forms for this program.

Q9: How will the BAA treat industry intellectual property, associated commercialization rights, and data rights?

A9: Refer to BAA requirements for Intellectual Property assertions.

Q10: Can humans be used to shake down prior to launch? In other words, when does human engagement stop?

A10: For conceptual designs human physical interaction is prohibited once the vessels leave the pier until they return. For demonstration purposes scale model proposals should consider human interaction as necessary for safety while demonstrating the goals of zero human intervention.

Q11: Can you elaborate on the mission type(s)?

A11: DARPA is interested in increasing transoceanic deployment capabilities for MUSVs. No specific missions are identified within the program.

Q12: Is there benefit in mentioning NOMARS concepts in proposal?

A12: No.

Q13: Can you have 3 distinct proposals for each connector type?

A13: DARPA is not restricting the number of individual proposals per company.

Q14: In previous work you mentioned water jets causing a problem. Can you elaborate?

A14: The example of water jets was used as an example highlighting the need for proposers to consider the implications of propulsion integration, as defined in the BAA.

Q15: Can you say more on inter-vessel communication? For example, Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) or ‘EMCON’ requirements.

A15: DARPA does not intend to invest in LPI/EMCON systems, however performers should consider the implications and traceability of operating in a contested environment within their Conceptual Design.

Q16: Is offboard human intervention or offboard monitoring assumed or required?

A16: Proposers can assume similar operational models to the Navy’s MUSV and LUSV Programs Of Record (PoR), where vessels are monitored from remote operations centers or non-line-of-sight manned vessels.

Q17: On Proposer’s Day slide 16, Dr. Nuss mentioned autonomy demonstrations may not be necessary in Phase 1. On slide 18 the 3rd objective of Phase 1 incudes in-water scaled autonomous aggregation and disaggregation. Please comment/reconcile.

A17: Please reference the BAA for specific descriptions of end of Phase 1 and 2 demonstration goals.

Q18: Are there implied Critical Design Reviews (CDRs) for the Phase 1 & Phase 2 demonstration systems? Why is Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for demonstration system (DS) so late in the period of performance?

A18: There are no implied CDRs for Phase 1 or Phase 2. A tailored PDR comprising a review and final report for each demonstration phase will be required.

Q19: Is 25 knot operation as a sea train in sea state 5 really a requirement?

A19: Please reference the BAA for the program metrics.

Q20: Abstract shows on Proposer’s Day slide 17, but not on slide 24. Is there an abstract?

A20: DARPA will not solicit abstracts for this BAA.

Q21: What ranges/endurances need to be demonstrated in Phase 2?

A21: Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 demonstrations should provide traceability in the objective conceptual design.

Q22: How much emphasis is given to single craft performance at 30+ knots? In other words, should the vessel be optimized for high speed in isolation and then show good performance at low speed in ‘train’ formation only?

A22: DARPA expects single craft and train performance per the metric table in the BAA.

Q23: There is a very short time to team, select concept, describe problems to solve, and write proposals. After submittal February 17, teams will likely learn of additional benefits to the program (creativity never stops). How will DARPA capture these benefits after February 17, 2020?

A23: Proposals should include a well-defined approach to complete a Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) 90 days after award to inform technology maturation and risk reduction through the life of the program.

The opportunity to update the CoDR exists at the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Q24: Will there be a whitepaper phase before full proposal submission?

A24: DARPA will not solicit whitepapers for this BAA.

Q25: Is there a desire to have common Sea Train & NOMARS hull solutions?

A25: No.

Q26: When you say ‘operate’ in sea state 5 does this operational goal include coupling/decoupling maneuver?

A26: Please refer to the BAA for program metrics and explanation.

Q27: How will DARPA protect Intellectual Property (IP)?

A27: Refer to BAA requirements for Intellectual Property assertions.

Q28: What is kinematic intelligence?

A28: Kinematic intelligence was offered as an example approach for controls algorithms that continuously adapt based on the learned performance and state of the vessels. Proposers are encouraged to explore all novel controls based approaches that satisfy the program goals.

Q29: The metrics listed for the full size, four vessel sea train are for simulation demonstration purposes?

A29: Proposers are encouraged to propose approaches in Phase 1 and 2 to demonstrate the full program metrics as defined in the BAA that may include scaled testing, analysis, and simulation.