HR001120S0031-Amendment-01.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

Answers to Questions on

Broad Agency Announcement

Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations

(DRACO)

Tactical Technology Office

HR001120S0031

June 17, 2020

1. Q: We saw the DRACO solicitation for the design of a nuclear thermal propulsion system and are interested in seeing if there is space for a technology we have been developing. Our expertise is not in the nuclear thermal engine, but rather efficient power generation. We do not envision responding to this topic on our own, but are interested in augmenting a team to supply analysis and feedback regarding using a nuclear thermal engine to double as an onboard power source. If you believe this is within the scope of the DRACO program, can you suggest how to best approach joining a team to respond?

A: If your company does not intend to propose as a prime for Track A or B but are still interested in participating as a sub-contractor, you will need to work with industry partners on a teaming arrangement.

2. Q: The schedule on Figure 2 shows evaluation for the Operational System (OS) extending through the end of the period of performance before being completed, which is almost a year beyond the last associated OS deliverables tied to OS SRR. Should we assume that the OS activities really end after the OS SRR, or is there other required scope related to the OS that extends to the end of the period of performance?

A: DARPA intends to develop, fabricate, and demonstrate the demonstration system (DS) in Phases 2 and 3 of the DRACO program. The operational system (OS) is being developed to an SRR level in Phase 1 to inform the DS design. DARPA’s intent is that OS design activities cease after the OS SRR in Phase 1. The focus of the remainder of Phase 1 and prospective follow-on phases will be on developing, fabricating, and demonstrating the DS only.

3. Q: Can DRACO proposals include costs for classified storage and classified IT systems to be used for the DRACO program?

A: Proposers should include in their cost proposals all costs that they propose to incur in the completion of the effort, with proper supporting documentation, for the Government’s evaluation.

4. Q: Would the DARPA DRACO program office sponsor additional, initial security clearances for both individuals and facilities for this effort?

A: If selected, performers will be provided a DD254 authorizing classified work under the contract or agreement. Performers can use this DD254 to request clearances for personnel through the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). DARPA does not actively sponsor additional clearances. Proposers intending to utilize this process should note that gaining clearances for personnel can be a lengthy process and DARPA is unable to expedite the process.

DARPA is able to sponsor additional facility clearances for performers once the contract or agreement is awarded and the DD254 is in place. Under this process, DARPA provides a sponsorship package to DCSA and then DCSA manages the accreditation process.

Proposers intending to utilize these processes should note that the DCSA personnel clearance and facility accreditation processes can be lengthy and DARPA is unable to expedite these processes. Additionally, proposers should note that DARPA will not directly cover costs for personnel clearances or facility accreditations.

5. Q: If an offeror proposes an Other Transaction (OT) agreement, does the cost proposal section need to include the “attached cost detail spreadsheet” or does the cost volume only include the items in the OT section of the instruction (i.e. Milestone description, Completion criteria, Due date, and Payment/funding schedule)?

A: All Volume II requirements apply irrespective of proposed award instrument.

6. Q: Does “single track” mean going forward with a single prime, or do you anticipate multiple awards (more than 1 prime) for the single track? (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the

BAA.)

i. Page 3 - Follow-on phases are expected to consist of a single track for detailed design, fabrication, and demonstration on-orbit of the DS.

ii. Page 5 -Phases 2 and 3 are expected to consist of a single track.

iii. Page 12 - Coordination between Tracks A and B will be essential to a smooth transition from the split track approach in Phase 1 to a more conventional prime contractor, subcontractor approach in a prospective follow-on phase.

A: Any work for the notional follow-on Phases 2 and 3 will be solicited in the future by a completely separate Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) from the current solicitation (HR001120S0031). DARPA anticipates that Phases 2 and 3 will be solicited as a single track with the objective of delivering an on-orbit demonstration. The number of performers selected for the notional follow-on Phases 2 and 3 (vs. the distinct Tracks A and B of Phase 1) will be dependent on the status of several factors, such as funding availability, at the time of source selection for that separate, future solicitation.

7. Q: To provide a response to the BAA the contractor(s) will select a contracting instrument type with the understanding that the contract type will be decided by DARPA in negotiations – is this acceptable to DARPA that the contractor(s) select a contract type to submit a response to the BAA?

(See below for details regarding where it is noted in the BAA.)

i. Page 3 - Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or other transaction.

ii. Page 14 - In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees.

iii. Page 15 - While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type.

A: Yes, the proposer may propose the award instrument allowed by the BAA that they believe is most appropriate. The proposal should include clear justification for the proposer’s choice of contract.

8. Q: The figure on page 7 is not labeled “Figure 2”. Is this the Figure 2? (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the BAA.)

i. Page 6 - Hierarchies of Track A and Track B system levels, including the propulsion subsystem, are illustrated in Figure 2.

A: Yes, the figure at the top of p. 7 is “Figure 2”. Unfortunately, a few formatting errors occurred in uploading the PDF document to posting sites, to include leaving the Figure 2 caption towards the bottom of p. 6, while the figure itself got pushed onto p. 7.

9. Q: There are several references to cost metrics. Are these cost metrics provided by DARPA or are they developed by each Contractor(s)? (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the

BAA.)

i. Page 10 – Track A Review Descriptions and Expectations Propulsion CoDR Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics.

ii. Page 10 - Propulsion SuRR Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to Bill of Materials (BOM) and non-recurring engineering costs that meets cost metrics.

iii. Page 11 - Reactor BDR Cost – Revised Bill of Materials (BOM) and non-recurring engineering costs based on baseline design is documented and within established cost metrics.

iv. Page 11 - Track B Reviews Descriptions and Expectations OS CoDR Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics.

v. Page 11 – DS CoDR Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics.

vi. Page 12 – OS SRR Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to Bill of Materials (BOM) and non-recurring engineering costs that meets cost metrics.

vii. Page 12 – DS SRR Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to BOM and nonrecurring engineering costs that meets cost metrics.

A: The proposer is responsible for developing and justifying the cost metrics in their proposal.

Such cost metrics could be a Phase 1 spend plan, a cost objective for a Phase 2 and 3 demonstration program, or any other proposer derived cost metric.

10. Q: It is mentioned that Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics. The contractors are preparing a firm proposal and not a ROM, correct? (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the BAA.)

i. Page 10 – “Cost – Rough order of magnitude cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to meet cost metrics”

A: Yes, proposers are preparing a firm proposal. ROM cost estimates are used in the context of the major program reviews, not in reference to proposals to this BAA.

11. Q: Is it acceptable to provide a cost proposal that includes only 3 TIMs? It seems per the below that we might need to support more TIMs depending on when the Track B performers have their TIMs, or is it expected that the contractors’ work together to schedule the TIMs at the same time? (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the BAA.)

i. Page 12 - Technology Interchange Meeting Expectations During Phase 1, Track A performers are expected to host three TIMs with each Track B performer at a Track A performer facility.

A: As stated at the bottom of page 8 under “Technical Interchange Meetings”, Track A and B performers shall engage in a minimum of three Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM) during the course of Phase 1. This minimum would reflect a situation where one Track A and one Tack B performer are selected.

For the proposal cost estimate, DARPA recommends assuming two (2) performers for each track, resulting in six (6) TIMs overall for each performer. The actual number of TIMs will depend on the number of Track A and B performers selected. The actual number of TIMs will be considered during negotiations for performers selected for potential contract award.

12. Q: What qualifies as a secured channel? Is this only through DoD SAFE?

i. The security documentation we received yesterday indicated that Unclassified information on this BAA is to be transmitted via secured Unclassified channels

A: All information should be handled in accordance with the DRACO Security Classification Guide

(DARPA-CG-1076).

Unclassified information may be handled as such.

Unclassified // For Official Use Only information may be sent via DoD SAFE, encrypted unclassified e-mail, or in encrypted documents sent via unclassified e-mail, with the password provided via separate e-mail.

Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the processes outlined in the solicitation under “Security Information” on page 26 and “3. Submission Information” on page 32.

13. Q: The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires Contracting Officers to purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices. It is anticipated that the BAA will include expressed requirements such that adequate price competition will exist if two or more offers submit or there is a reasonable expectation, they will submit priced offers that will allow the Government to determine price realism and reasonableness. Therefore, [company name] requests that the submission of certified cost or pricing data will not be required per FAR 15.403-1. (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the BAA.)

i. Page 25 “Per FAR 15.403-4, certified cost or pricing data shall be required…”

A: Adequate price competition is not considered to exist relative to this BAA, as proposers will not be proposing against a common work statement. Therefore, because each proposal represents a unique solution to the BAA objectives, certified cost and pricing data will be required whenever the threshold specified in FAR 15.403 has been met.

14. Q: It seems that there is a cost detail spreadsheet mentioned. Does DARPA intend to provide this spreadsheet to the contractor(s)? (See below for details regarding where it is noted in the BAA.)

i. Page 24 “The cost proposal must include the attached cost detail spreadsheet, completed by the price proposer and each proposed subcontractor, in an editable format with calculation formulas intact”

A: The cost detail spreadsheet was a separate document posted with BAA PDF on beta.sam.gov;

please find it here:

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/471584e16391415da6e5dc08c33e9aa4/view?keywords=HR001120S0 031&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1

15. Q: On page 8, top paragraph, re Track A. The BAA states that HALEU will be provided as government furnished equipment (GFE) but that each Track A offeror is to estimate the amount of HALEU needed for phase 1 and is to include the value of that GFE in the total cost. What value is the offeror to place on the HALEU as GFE?

A: Proposers should indicate the amount of HALEU needed to execute their proposed program, and do not need to include a cost for the HALEU itself in the total GFE cost.

16. Q: Beginning on page 19, Section B, Content and Form of Application Submission. No place in the instructions does the BAA refer to a desire for a cover, cover page, table of contents, list of figures, or acronym list. Are these desired, and if so, how do they relate to the 70-page limit for Volume 1?

A: The inclusion of these items is at the proposer’s discretion; they would count towards the 70 page limit for Volume I. Please note that the requirement for a cover sheet is specifically addressed at the top of p. 20 under “Section I: Administrative”.

17. Q: Beginning on page 19, Section B, Content and Form of Application Submission. This section states that there is a 70-page limit for Volume 1. It also presents limits for major sections, and suggested page limits for lower-level sections. The section, though, is confusing, in particular regarding Section III: Detailed Proposal Information, which has a page limit of 56 pages. There are seven lower-level headings, four of which have suggested page limits that total 24 pages. This leaves 22 pages for the remaining three sections: the SOW, the schedule, and design review content and data package information. Each of those three sections have the words: no page limit at their beginning. Does this mean that they outside the 56-page limit and can go as long as necessary? Or does it mean that we are to spread the remaining 22 pages across those sections as we find necessary?

A: Please keep in mind that numbers presented in braces { } for sub-sections are recommendations only, whereas numbers in brackets [ ] for the sections indicate the maximum number allowed. The overall page count for “Section III: Detailed Proposal Information” may not exceed 56 pages. The number of those 56 pages allocated to each sub-section is subject to the proposer’s judgement.

The recommended page lengths for each sub-section are shown in braces { }; proposers may adjust the number of sub-section pages as they see necessary as long as the number of pages for the overall section remains under the maximum indicated in brackets [ ]. The maximum page limit for Volume I is 70 pages.

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/471584e16391415da6e5dc08c33e9aa4/view?keywords=HR001120S0031&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1 https://beta.sam.gov/opp/471584e16391415da6e5dc08c33e9aa4/view?keywords=HR001120S0031&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1

18. Q: Beginning on Page 26 and continuing for several pages, under the heading 2. Additional Proposal Information. DARPA requests a wide range of additional information including information on security, disclosure of information and compliance on safeguarding covered defense information controls, use of human subjects, approved cost accounting systems, small business plans, intellectual property, etc. However, there is no clarity on where in the two volumes this information is to be provided. Is it correct to assume that it should be provided as attachments to Volume 2, which is outside the 70-page count for Volume 1?

A: Additional Proposal Information is separate from both Volume I and Volume II and does not count against the page limitation.

19. Q: Beginning on page 33, under the heading a) Proposal Submission. This sections seems to offer three options for delivery:

i. Option 1. Deliver the unclassified portion through the DARPA’s BAA Website and the classified portion separately by mail following the direction in the Security Information section of the BAA and the instructions stating one original, two copies, and two CD-ROMs.

This appears to be DARPA’s preference.

ii. Option 2. In cases where a proposal cannot be divided into a classified portion and unclassified portion, deliver an original and two copies and two CD-ROMs by mail following the direction in the Security Information section. However, DARPA prefers that an unclassified portion be used to the maximum amount possible.

iii. Option 3. Those that do not want to submit their unclassified portion through the BAA Website, may deliver an original and two copies and two CD-ROMS of their unclassified portion in hard copy, but this is an option and appears not to be DARPA’s preference. It also is not required if Option 1 is adopted.

Is this understanding correct?

A: This is correct.

20. Q: On page 18, under heading B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Government procedures. Is the government managing potential OCI for Track B proposers also participating on Track A teams or is that expected to be included as part of the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan?

A: The government is not managing potential OCIs. Proposers are expected to address any potential for OCI in their OCI mitigation plan.

21. Q: On page 5, under heading B. Program Approach:

i. Are Track A teams intended to be exclusive, or can members of Track A teams participate in several proposals?

ii. Are there limitations in how Track A & B proposers can collaborate? For example:

Can Track A & B primes collaborate on generating their respective proposal content?

Can a Track B prime be a sub on a Track A proposal team?

A: Proposers must avoid Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) in all cases, and address potential OCIs in their OCI mitigation plan. There are no explicit limitations as to how potential Tack A and B proposers can collaborate. However, as stated in the “Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission” evaluation criteria beginning on page 35: “To maximize flexibility and minimize risk for the prospective follow on phase for design, fabrication, and demonstration of the DS, proposals should not necessitate exclusive relationships between Track A and Track B performers.”

22. Q: On page 12, under heading E. Technical Interchange Meeting Expectations, for Track B proposers that also are on a Track A proposal (as a prime or a sub), how will DARPA manage the TIMs for Track A primes to host the Track B teams? In this case, a Track B team may be expected to receive information from a Track A competitor (on a separate Track A proposal team). Will there be requirements on segregation of team members or information?

A: The Government will encourage Track A and B performers to hold TIMs according to the schedule in Figure 1 of the BAA. However, Track A and B performers will be expected to collaborate on managing the TIM schedule and structure. There are no explicit requirements for segregating team members, but performers will be expected to mitigate or eliminate any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) risks or issues with respect to sharing information between Track A and B. Proposers are expected to submit an OCI mitigation plan that the Government will evaluate as part of the proposal.

23. Q: Can more clarity be provided on the interface between Track A and Track B? Specifically, what is included in the propulsion subsystem?

A: If the propulsion subsystem induces propellants via pump inlet(s), the propulsion subsystem shall be considered to begin at pump inlet(s); otherwise the propulsion subsystem shall be considered to begin at engine propellant manifold inlet(s). The propulsion subsystem ends at the exhaust plane(s). Components used to receive the propellant at the inlet, process the fluid, and produce the desired conditions at the exhaust plane over the desired range of operating conditions are included in the propulsion subsystem.

24. Q: Can DARPA clarify whether the fluid system (tanks, cryofluid management, valves, fluid flow control) system fall within Track A or B?

A: Track B is expected to design the “fluid system” as it pertains to subsystems other than the propulsion subsystems. Track A is expected to design and specify expectations for the “fluid system” as it pertains to the propulsion subsystem. There will be TIMs in which Track A and Track B will ensure that fluid system management is coherent between the propulsion subsystem (Track A) and outside subsystems (Track B) for the entire DS/OS.

25. Q: Are there additional technical requirements beyond those contained in the BAA and the Classified Addendum (or to be derived there from)? Specifically, are there requirements for:

i. Thrust class, specific impulse, total impulse or other propulsive requirement

ii. Technology constraints or selections beyond use of high-assay LEU (such as propellant, moderator or shielding materials, feed/balance of plant subsystem, bi-modal reactor operation)

iii. Launch mass/class

A: No further information is available beyond what is contained in the BAA and Classified Addendum.

26. Q: Are Track B proposers anticipated to propose a design concept for either the DS or OS? Or, will proposals be evaluated only on approaches for technical and programmatic management?

A: Track B proposers are expected to develop design concepts for both the Demonstration System (DS) and Operational System (OS).

27. Q: Can DARPA provide clarification or additional criteria for Track B proposal evaluation (if Track B proposers are not expected to provide DS/OS design concepts)? Specifically, it seems the scientific / technical merit criteria would be irrelevant. Should emphasis be placed on the planned systems engineering, design, analysis, and risk management processes?

A: Track B proposers are expected to develop DS and OS concepts. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria provided in Section V.A. “Evaluation Criteria” of the BAA, beginning on page 34.

28. Q: If the proposal has to consider classified information (as indicated in the BAA) what is the mechanism during the proposal preparation period to allow approval of non-classified derived requirements to be flowed to non-cleared contractors to answer the proposal, especially if the track B has to propose a DS/ OS design concept at proposal submission?

A: All proposals must handle program information in accordance with the DRACO Security Classification Guide (DARPA-CG-1076). No further information is available beyond what is contained in the BAA and Classified Addendum.

29. Q: Can DARPA clarify to what degree Track A and Track B teams can share information, and what mechanisms are allowed to be used?

A: Please see the first paragraph under Figure 1 on page 5 describing the notional program schedule and structure, “Technical Interchange Meetings” on page 8, and Section I.E. “Technical Interchange Meeting Expectations” on page 12 of the BAA.

30. Q: Can DARPA provide a model fixed-price OT agreement so that proposes can evaluate potential terms and conditions?

A: DARPA does not provide a model OT. Please visit http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions and https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil/ for additional information on OTs.

31. Q: Would it be possible for DARPA to establish JWICS as an optional classified communication method for proposal documents with industry participants?

A: Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the processes outlined in the solicitation under “Security Information” on page 26 and “3. Submission Information” on page 32.

All proposals must handle program information in accordance with the DRACO Security Classification Guide (DARPA-CG-1076). Therefore, prospective proposers can transmit program information by any means that is accredited to handle information at the classification level of the information transmitted.

32. Q: In the BAA, Page 30, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, the section states: “Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 637(d)) and FAR 19.702(a)(1), each proposer who submits a contract proposal and includes subcontractors might be required to submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal.” Please clarify the criteria that determines if a plan is required or not. Is this applicable if the proposed contract mechanism is an OT agreement?

A: Please review FAR 19.702 for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements. As a reminder, FAR requirements are not applicable to OTs.

33. Q: Would a design using a phenomenology differing from the solicitation specification (i.e. other than nuclear thermal propulsion driven by nuclear fission) be considered for funding under this

BAA?

A: Only proposals that utilizing nuclear thermal propulsion will be considered under this solicitation.

34. Q: Track A: Can DARPA describe the licensing process and codes/standards that would be applied to NTP system in space environment?

A: DARPA does not expect the NTP system will require licensing for launch or on-orbit.

35. Q: Track A & B: What is the best way to add SCI or HVSCO information to proposal?

A: Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the processes outlined in the solicitation under “Security Information” on page 26 and “3. Submission Information” on page 32.

36. Q: Page 18, Section III-C: Cost sharing is stated to be "carefully considered" and encouraged. How will this be evaluated within the existing criteria?

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil/

A: All proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the evaluation criteria in Section V.A. Per Section V.A.3: “For efforts with a likelihood of commercial application, appropriate direct cost sharing may be a positive factor in the evaluation.”

37. Q: Page 22, Section 3: Detailed Proposal Information-D: IMS: If an IMS is developed in MS Project, are bidders expected to insert the project data within the proposal pages or deliver the project file?

A: Proposers should include an image or images of their IMS in Volume I of their proposal.

Proposers should also attach an electronic IMS file in a common format (e.g. MS Project) to their proposal.

38. Q: Page 21, Section 3: Detailed Proposal Information-C: SOW: Should the SOW be included in line with the proposal pages or submitted as a separate document? Will the SOW count against the page limit?

A: As described on page 22 of the solicitation, the SOW should be included in “Section III:

Detailed Proposal Information” and counts towards the 56 page limit for that section.

39. Q: Page 22, Section 3: Detailed Proposal Information-E: Design Review and Content and Data Package Development: Design review content / expectations is described in the Section titled "Track A Review Descriptions and Expectations". Is the intent of this proposal section to define any exceptions or additions to the previously defined content?

A: This section is the proposer’s opportunity to state how they will meet the expectations defined in the review descriptions and expectations stated in Section I.D. of the BAA. This section should demonstrate the proposer’s understanding of the expectations and the adequacy of their plan to meet the expectations. Any exceptions or additions to the expectations should be stated and justified.

40. Q: Are the contractors required to prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) applicable to a DARPA development of a fission reactor power system for space use?

A: No, DARPA plans to manage and produce the required analyses and reports for launch approval process, including NEPA documentation.

41. Q: Will the Mission Ops Center be GFE or Contractor Furnished Equipment? What is the highest classification of data that the MOC will be expected to handle?

A: If proposers choose to include a mission ops center (MOC) in their proposal, the proposer should select an MOC that best meets the program approach. DARPA does not have an explicit preference between Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) vs Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE). Proposers should balance the benefits, costs, and risks of GFE vs CFE and justify their selection in the proposal. If proposers include an MOC in their proposal, they should ensure the MOC can handle classified data commensurate with the DRACO Security

Classification Guide (DARPA-CG-1076) and the security classification guidance of other systems employed during the mission.