ACE TA4 BAA Questions and Answers_Final.pdf

HR001122S0015 Questions and Answers

The following question and answers are provided in support of the Air Combat Evolution (ACE) Technical Area 4 (TA4) Phases 2 & 3 Broad Agency Announcement (BAA):

Q1: Please confirm whether or not the IP datalink is GFE and already installed in the

F-16s being provided for mod.

A1: The IP datalink will not be GFE. Proposers should include the addition of an IP data link. Proposers should provide an IP datalink with an encryptor as part of their technical solution, including antenna installation.

Q2: Will the Government provide F-16 Ground Support Equipment (GSE) to the selected TA4 performer?

A2: It is anticipated that standard F-16 GSE will be provided to the selected TA4 performer.

Q3: When will the first F-16D be delivered to the selected TA4 performer?

A3: Aircraft are anticipated to be delivered to the selected TA4 performer in approximately 2Q or 3Q of FY23 during the Fab Kit and Mod Aircraft 1 & 2 period indicated on the schedule in BAA Figure 5.

Q4: The schedule as suggested in the BAA is aggressive. Assuming that the schedule in the BAA is the Objective schedule, does DARPA have a Threshold schedule in mind?

A4: No, there is no threshold schedule. If a proposer is not able to meet the schedule in the BAA, they should propose a schedule they can meet.

Q5: What is the view of LVC capabilities? What LVC capabilities do you envision?

A5: Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) enables one or more live (real) entities and one or more virtual (simulated) entities to seamlessly participate together in a testing situation. We envision using varying combinations of live and virtual entities during testing as appropriate to support the test plan. In particular, we expect to use a datalink such as SLATE or CRIIS to pass state information from aircraft to aircraft and from aircraft to ground stations.

Q6: Are there GPU-based processing requirements for the Mission Systems hardware?

A6: At this time, there is no specific GPU-based processing requirement. Future GPU processing capabilities will be dependent on the capacity of the Mission Computer hardware selected.

Q7: The table on pages 22 – 24 reference SWaP-C requirements. Are there current

NTE requirements for SWaP-C?

A7: No, there are no current NTE requirements for SWaP-C. Rather, the SWaP-C must be calculated/measured as part of the deliverables.

Q8: The BAA instructs the bidder to consider Edwards AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB for Ground and Flight testing. Should we assume those same locations for kit installation?

A8: The proposer should select the location for kit installation that is most appropriate for their proposed solution. Edwards AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB are possibilities.

Q9: Please describe the training for Government aircrew that will be required.

A9: Government aircrew should be assumed to be test pilots. Testing under the ACE program will remain experimental. It is anticipated training requirements should be comparable to similar flight test experimentation with test pilots.

Q10: For podded solutions or sub-components that mount to wing stations, is there room for additional wires in the existing wire bundles that run through the wings?

A10: It should be assumed that there will be sufficient room for the additional wire bundles that run through the wing.

Q11: Are we permitted to add additional bulkhead feedthrough connectors to the cockpit bulkhead for use by the mission system, or are we expected to only make use of unused pins in existing cockpit bulkhead feedthrough connectors?

A11: Yes, additional bulkhead feedthrough connectors are permitted.

Q12: Is the performer responsible for installation of the wiring connections for the following systems or only communicating with these systems via existing MIL- STD-1760 wiring:

• Northrop Grumman APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar

• Lockheed Martin Legion Pod

• ALQ-213

• Angry Kitten Pod

• Link-16

• Targeting pods such as the Lockheed Martin Sniper pod or the Northrup Grumman LITENING pod

A12: The performer is responsible for installation of the Ethernet wiring connections to these additional systems under Option 2. Communication with these additional systems is covered under Option 3.

Q13: If an LVC capable pod is installed on station 1 or 9, will the mission computer be permitted to communicate with the pod via wireless network (e.g., Wi-Fi)?

Q:14 Can tablet displays communicate with the mission computer via wireless network

(e.g., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) rather than using Ethernet ports with RJ45-to-USB converters?

A13 & A14: Wireless networking is prohibited due to electromagnet emission restrictions.

Q15: The Volume I cover sheet instructions on page 31 do not match the coversheet template on page 52. Please advise which is correct.

A15: Page 52 is a template for the formatting of the coversheet. The requirements for the coversheet are on page 31.

Q16: For testing the full scale aircraft modification:

1. Will the performer be expected to perform GROUND testing using contractor test pilots that were involved in the planning, embodiment, and execution of the aircraft Mod?

2. Will the performer be expected to perform FLIGHT testing using contractor test pilots that were involved in the planning, embodiment, and execution of the aircraft Mod?

A16: Proposal Assumption 7 on page 21 states: “Pilots, aircraft, and operation and maintenance of the aircraft will be provided by the USAF.”

Q17: BAA, Page 7, Paragraph 3. Program Objectives, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, says: “The TA4 performer will be responsible for full-scale aircraft modification, providing airworthiness documentation, and testing that includes aircraft interface development, ground test, flight test and experimentation, as well as any specialized maintenance.”

1. What technical data on these F-16's will the Government be providing, if any?

2. Will the Government provide technical details on all of the aircraft interfaces, including but not limited to the Hybrid Flight Control Computer (HFLCC), aircraft displays, electrical system, mission systems, avionics buses, structural information, etc.?

3. Will technical data be provided on the radar and various pods that are to be integrated?

A17: Technical data will be provided after contract award. Assumptions for the proposed technical solution should be included in the proposal.

Q18: BAA, Page 11, Paragraph 2: A list of optional equipment is provided that needs to be physically interfaced. This list includes the NGC APG-83, LM Legion Pod, ALQ-213, Angry Kitten Pod, Link-16, and other targeting pods such as the LM Sniper pod or the NGC LITENING pod.

1. Will the physical hardware interface and mounting ICD be provided?

2. Will the electrical ICD for power and data lines be provided?

A19: Technical data will be provided after contract award. Assumptions for the

Q20: BAA, Page 7, Paragraph 3. Program Objectives, 1st paragraph, 3nd sentence, says: “For the Phase 2 Base Period and the Phase 3 Option (Option 1), the performer will modify two F-16D aircraft making them capable of integrating WVR autonomy algorithms developed in TA1 and TA2 through an interface specified in a Government-controlled ICD.”

1. Please provide additional details on the “interface”.

2. Will the TA-4 mission computer interface directly with the FLCS?

3. Is the interface the DARPA-created Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation

System (ALIAS)?

A20: Technical data will be provided after contract award. Assumptions for the

An overview of the current ACE M&S environment specification/”interface” will be available to proposers who request it prior to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern) on February 28, 2022.

The request should be made via email to HR001122S0015@darpa.mil with “M&S Specification Request” in the subject line and the email should contain the desired recipient name, title, company name, address, phone and email.

While using the DARPA ALIAS interface would leverage both existing DARPA investment and the ALIAS program’s track record of success, the interface should reflect the specifics of the proposer’s technical solution.

Q21: Is the data from the additional aircraft optional equipment installations to be delivered to the AI algorithms, the pilots, or both?

a. If provided to the AI algorithms, how is the data delivered to the AI algorithms? (i.e., Does the TA4 provider need to “break-into” the data lines and provide the data signal directly to the AI computer? Or is there an existing interface that the Government will provide?)

b. If provided to the pilots, how is the data delivered to the pilots? (i.e., Are there existing displays that are already being fed this information or does the provider need to provide additional displays or interfaces?)

A21: The data from the additional aircraft optional equipment should be delivered to both the Pilot and the AI algorithms. The data is expected to be delivered to the pilots in the same way it would be on an unmodified aircraft. The data provided to the AI is expected to be provided via the Ethernet connections installed as part of the modifications. Existing interface technical data will be provided after contract award.

Q22: Will the government provide the existing Air Combat Evolution (ACE) Modeling and Simulation environment specifications for TA-4 performers to review prior to the submission deadline? Or will the government provide any additional information about the ACE M&S environment?

A22: An overview of the current ACE M&S environment specification/”interface” will be available to proposers who request it prior to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern) on February 2, 2022. The request should be made via email to HR001122S0015@darpa.mil with “M&S Specification Request” in the subject line and the email should contain the desired recipient name, title, company name, address, phone and email. The TA- 4 proposers can anticipate needing to provide vehicle state information to the M&S environment that would mirror the state information available on the aircraft.

Please reference BAA page 15 regarding control modes.

Q23: Will the government provide an opportunity for TA-4 submitting companies to inspect the F-16D's to be modified or provide detailed pictures or schematics?

mailto:HR001122S0015@darpa.mil

This would allow for submitting companies to take measurements and design solutions that will meet the physically limited space in the F-16C/D cockpit equipped with CDU.

A23: No, there will not be an opportunity to inspect the F-16D’s to be modified prior to contract award. Nor will detailed pictures or schematics be provided prior to contract award. Technical data will be provided after contract award. Access to the aircraft will also be provided after contract award.

Q24: Will the Government provide the ICDs, integration guide, and/or APIs now during the proposal period for the following systems:

• Northrop Grumman APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar

• Lockheed Martin Legion Pod

• ALQ-213

• Angry Kitten Pod

• Link-16

• Targeting pods such as the Lockheed Martin Sniper pod or the Northrup Grumman LITENING pod

A24: No, ICDs, integration guides, and/or APIs will not be provided during the proposal period. Technical data will be provided after contract award.

Q25: Who is the responsible Government airworthiness authority that will issue the

Military Flight Release (MFR) for this program?

A25: It is anticipated that the F-16 SPO will be the Government airworthiness authority.

Q26: Will the program be overseen by a Government Flight Representative (GFR)?

A26: This has not yet been determined.

Q27: Will the USAF recognize airworthiness approval for systems operating under flight clearance on Navy aircraft, with any required mods cleared under a delta airworthiness approval with USAF under TA4?

A27: It is anticipated the USAF may recognize flight clearance/airworthiness releases from other airworthiness authorities. However, this is not guaranteed.

Q28: Phase 3, Option 2 requests cost for kits and modifications to the F/16 aircraft in quantities 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 (see page 7, paragraph 3). Where do we price these potential quantities within the Excel cost sheet? Do we present these cost within Volume 1?

A28: Ideally, costs for kits and modifications for each quantity (2, 4, 6, 8 and 10) would be placed on separate option tabs in the Excel file. This will help clearly delineate non-recurring costs from the recurring costs for kits and modifications.

Spreadsheet tabs may be renamed appropriately. If additional option tabs are added to the Excel file, please update the Total tab with additional columns so that the Total tab includes all option tabs. Please remember that the Excel file is a summary of the costs with base and options on separate tabs and that detailed cost breakdown should be included in Volume 2, broken down by 1) base and options, 2) WBS task, and 3) major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs; overhead charges, etc.). A modified spreadsheet has been provided as a recommended guide.

The total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any) should be presented on the cover sheet of Volume 1. All other cost data should be presented in Volume 2.

Q29: Does the cost for Phase 3, Option 3 get priced in the Excel file? Do we include the cost for Phase 3, Option 3 on the “Total Amount” tab of the Excel workbook?

If not, do those costs go in Volume 1?

A29: Ideally, cost for the Phase 3, Option 3 would be priced on one or more separate option tabs in the Excel file as appropriate for your Phase 3, Option 3. This will help clearly delineate Option 3 costs from the base costs and other option costs.

Spreadsheet tabs may be renamed appropriately. If additional option tabs are added to the Excel file, please update the Total tab with additional columns so that the Total tab includes all option tabs. Please remember that the Excel file is a summary of the costs with base and options on separate tabs and that detailed cost breakdown should be included in Volume 2, broken down by 1) base and options, 2) WBS task, and 3) major cost items (direct labor, including labor categories; subcontracts; materials; other direct costs; overhead charges, etc.). A modified spreadsheet has been provided as a recommended guide.

The total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any) be presented in Volume 2. Typically, proposers include the base and all options in totals.

Q30: Do we include the cost for Phase 3, Option 3 cost on the cover page on Volume

1?

A30: The total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any) should be presented on the cover sheet of Volume 1. Typically, proposers include the base and all options in totals.

Q31: Do we include Phase 3, Option 3 on the Appendix 3 cost summary slide?

A31: Yes, the base and all options should be included on the Appendix 3 cost summary slide.

Q32: Can we include cost information in the technical volume?

A32: The total funds requested from DARPA, and the amount of cost share (if any) be presented in Volume 2.

Q33: Will the Government consider use of mission systems from foreign suppliers, i.e., IP DL, IRST, etc., if those systems provide a clear and quantified benefit and if they can be integrated behind the MLS firewall?

A33: Additional mission systems beyond those listed in BAA Technical Objective 5 may be considered, including those from foreign suppliers. Additional mission systems would be subject to the 5 page limit per additional mission system. The proposer should include benefits and risks for additional mission system(s).

Q34: Will the Government consider COCO aircraft for the Base, Option 1 and/or Phase

3 Option 2?

A34 Yes, the Government may consider COCO aircraft. However, this solicitation requires proposals for modification of government-furnished F-16s. As a reminder, “Compliant proposals must address the Phase 2 Base Period, the Phase 3 Option (Option 1), and the additional aircraft hardware option (Option 2).

Proposers may choose to submit all, some, or none of the mission systems software integration specified in the additional aircraft mission systems software integration option (Option 3).” COCO options may be proposed as additional options 4-7 that would parallel the existing base and options 1-3. If a proposer wishes to propose in this manner, a separate cost volume should also be provided for the COCO options.