Glide_Breaker_Phase_2_QA_Final.pdf

DARPA TTO Broad Agency Announcement

Glide Breaker Phase 2

HR001122S0036

Questions and Answers

May 9, 2022

Questions and Answers:

Question 1: Is there an incumbent contractor, or is this is a brand-new contract?

Answer 1: HR001122S0036 is a solicitation for a new phase (Phase 2) of the Glide Breaker program, and as such there is not an incumbent contractor.

Question 2: Will DARPA extend the due date for Glide Breaker Phase 2 BAA proposals.

Answer 2: The proposal due date has been revised from June 10, 2022 1700 Eastern Time to July 08, 2022 1700 Eastern Time.

Question 3: In I.C (Major Design Review Descriptions and Expectations), the implication is that the expectations enumerated in the General section apply to all reviews with review-specific expectations set out for each review below General. However, the General expectations for Requirements and Design are more stringent than the review-specific expectations. For example, the General expectations for Requirements Development state that requirements must be established at Level 4, but the PDR expectations for Requirements Development state that Levels 1-3 should be complete (same for Design Definition). Please confirm that the review-specific expectations take precedence over the General expectations.

Answer 3: In places where the review-specific expectations conflict with the general expectations, proposers should assume that the review-specific expectations take precedence.

Question 4: Can DARPA provide additional funding information for the program?

Answer 4: Additional budget information will not be shared at this time.

Question 5: How can the proposer(s)/performer(s) collaborate with the Government team (e.g., computational group at APL)?

Answer 5: DARPA will provide oversight and advice to the performer. DARPA expects the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to support the Government team and to provide independent assessments on aspects of the performer’s scope. While the Government team will help to guide the performer as described in Part II Section I of the BAA, the Phase 2 scope is wholly the responsibility of the performer and performance should not rely on collaboration from the Government team.

Question 6: Is it acceptable to assume Authorization to Proceed (ATP) date of 01 Oct 2022 or does DARPA have a desired ATP?

Answer 6: A 01 Oct 2022 ATP is acceptable to use as a general estimate for proposal pricing purposes, but please note that the actual ATP date will depend upon the proposal evaluation and contract negotiation timeframes.

Question 7: Is it acceptable for proposers to assume a date when the option period will conclude?

Answer 7: The schedule provided in Figure 2 of the BAA is notional. Proposers should propose a schedule that best aligns with their proposed technical approach, being sure to substantiate any significant deviations from the notional schedule.

Question 8: Due to the extensive time required to build a full Cost Analysis Report with DCAA assist audit/approved rates per FAR 15.404-1, would DARPA be willing to accept a “qualified” cost analysis on the prime’s subcontractors with a definitization schedule for a full cost analysis report to be completed by negotiations start?

Answer 8: FAR 15.404-3 allows prime proposers for FAR-based procurement contracts latitude as to the method(s) they use to determine/document the reasonableness of their subcontractors’ costs/prices. A DCAA-assist audit is one such method, but it is not required.

Question 9: Given the tight proposal schedule and late transmission of classified data necessary to develop effective Statements of Work (SOWs) would utilization of Not To Exceed (NTE) pricing along with a definitization schedule for some of our major subcontracts be acceptable with firm pricing and full cost analysis reports to be completed by negotiations start?

Answer 9: NTE pricing may be used, but subcontract costs will still need to be sufficiently detailed per the BAA’s cost proposal requirements to allow for cost realism evaluation. Please note that Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing should not be used.

Question 10: The BAA states in §I.A.2 that "the OS design should not be matured beyond the conceptual level in the proposal". Subsequently in §I.A.3 it states that "Proposals should include scope to update the OS conceptual design at major milestone reviews, as needed, to reflect changes resulting from knowledge learned in the wind tunnel and flight testing of the DS design." Which statement takes precedence?

Answer 10: The proposal should include a conceptual OS design. As knowledge on JI is gained during performance, scope should be included to update the proposed conceptual design. However, proposals should not include scope to mature the overall OS design beyond the conceptual level (e.g., proposed scope should not include preliminary or detailed design of an OS concept).

Question 11: "Para 3 Operational System - Proposals should include scope to update the OS conceptual design at major milestone reviews, as needed, to reflect changes resulting from knowledge learned in the wind tunnel and flight testing of the DS design. Does DARPA intend to allocate funding to update OS designs as part of the base contract?"

Answer 11: Proposals should include scope to update the OS conceptual design based on knowledge gained in the program. Actual funding provided and scope included in the performer’s contract will be subject to DARPA’s scientific review process and negotiation of selected proposal(s).

Question 12: The BAA (page 6) states, "DARPA expects the performer(s) to deliver a full data package describing the design of the DS." Is this expected to include internal design elements needed to collect data such as electronics, instrumentation, firmware/software, and telemetry, or is this expectation focused on the DS airframe and DACS design?

Answer 12: Yes. DARPA expects a full description of the DS design including internal design elements needed to collect data such as electronics, instrumentation, firmware/software, and telemetry.

Question 13: With reference to the OS system, the BAA (page 7) states, "DARPA expects the analysis will be submitted by proposers in a classified appendix to their proposal." Would such a classified appendix count toward the 47-page limit for the Volume I Technical and Management Proposal?

Answer 13: Yes, classified appendix will count toward the Volume I page limit.

Question 14: Will the Phase 1 DACS solutions be provided as GFE or is the proposer responsible for partnering with one of the DACS vendors as a subcontractor?

Answer 14: DARPA does not plan to provide DACS solutions as GFE. Specific propulsion solutions and partnership with vendors/subcontractors should be incorporated at the discretion of the performer.

Question 15: In the Proposer Day Phase 2 Overview charts (page 11), it states the expectation that the DS flight test will include a free flying payload. Is a non-separating solution acceptable for DS flight test as long as Wind Tunnel testing is done with the same configuration?

Answer 15: The BAA does not forbid proposal of a non-separating solution. However, DARPA believes that a non-separating solution could present challenges to gathering the desired data. Proposers should propose and justify selection of the solution they think best balances performance, cost, schedule, and risk.

Question 16: How can proposers get access to Glide Breaker Phase 1 reports?

Answer 16: Glide Breaker Phase 1 is still ongoing and reports are not available at this time.

Question 17: How does the Glide Breaker project relate to the UCAH Challenge Project in JI (Topic 2)?

Can proposers interact or team with UCAH performers?

Answer 17: Glide Breaker Phase 2 and the UCAH Challenge Project in JI (Topic 2) are related but independent efforts. Proposers are neither required to team nor forbidden from teaming with UCAH performers.

Question 18: Can the Glide Breaker performer(s) get access to unclassified and classified DoD-HPC resources?

Answer 18: Proposals can include requests for unclassified and/or classified DoD-HPC resources.

However, DARPA cannot not guarantee its ability to secure these resources for the performer. If proposers believe DoD-HPC resources are required to complete the scope or provide best value, then proposals can include requests for the resources. DARPA will evaluate the proposal and, if the proposal is selected for funding negotiations, negotiate on resources that will be provided by DARPA as GFE.

Question 19: Does DARPA consider adequate price competition to exist under this BAA?

Answer 19: With respect to FAR 15.403 Obtaining certified cost or pricing data, DARPA does not consider adequate price competition to exist, as the BAA does not include a common work statement against which all proposals will be priced.